Check out Janggi (Korean Chess), our featured variant for December, 2024.


[ 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
The Game of Nemoroth. For the sake of your sanity, do not read this variant! (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
David Howe wrote on Tue, Apr 9, 2002 03:45 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
I've heard vague rumours that this game, or a game very much like it, is
still played at Miskatonic University...

The excellent rating applies to presentation and originality. I have not
playtested this game (yet). Truth be told, I'm not sure I *want* to! :)

Jianying Ji wrote on Tue, Apr 9, 2002 05:41 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
Absolutely great, in coherence of theme and originality!

John Lawson wrote on Wed, Apr 10, 2002 12:08 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
Wow!!  

Who said theme doesn't count in abstract games?  I want to play this, but I
think I'm going to be disapointed when the pieces remain silent.  I want to
see a ZRF, but not too soon.  Whoever does it needs to do a good job on the
graphics, not to mention audio, to do the game justice.

'What eldritch noise did I hear?'  Perhaps the screech of the El.

gnohmon wrote on Wed, Apr 10, 2002 04:30 AM UTC:
It recently occurred to me that I might have named the Zombie an Iron
Golem so that its dissolution by ichor would be a nethack reference.

But perhaps that would have been inappropriate after all. Lovecraft never
played a game of Nethack in his life.

ben wrote on Thu, Apr 11, 2002 07:15 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
Question: can a wounded friend move over (but obviously not stop on) a
square occupied by a mummy?  i am not sure.

if anybody wants to try this game with me by email, send to
good7972@hotmail.com

gnohmon wrote on Thu, Apr 11, 2002 04:08 PM UTC:
A Wounded Fiend (not 'friend' unless you are a truly scary creature) is
impeded by mummies, as indeed a Rook would be. Notice also that it cannot
retrace its steps because of its own ichor, and therefore, as Azgoroth once
said, 'carries within it the seeds of its own destruction'. (The endgame
where each side has one Wounded Fiend and nothing else can be quite
interesting.)

This game is tough to get used to. For a while I thought I had made a major
rules error, but in fact when a Leaf Pile engulfs, the mummy does not
appear until it moves on, and so the Leaf Pile is vulnerable to being
engulfed by an enemy Leaf Pile. If it were not so, the first player would
attack with Leaf Pile (engulfing his own Human for greater speed) and win
by force.

gnohmon wrote on Thu, Apr 11, 2002 08:51 PM UTC:
Oops. It seeme I misremembered what the Spirit told me in my dream, for
when I tried to play the game it was too easy to end up in an impasse with
no good way to break it; and the reason was clearly that the Go Aways were
not performing their intended role.

Then I tried a few games in which the Go Away moved by leaping two squares
Rookwise or by moving one square diagonally, and things seemed to work much
better -- in fact, just about exactly right, in conformance to the original
vision of the game.

It is funny how the Wounded Fiend seems to be such an unimportant piece,
when it was the original inspiration for the game.

Under 'Interactions', it should be added that

'Leaping pieces can cross unharmed a square seen by a Basilisk, for their
talons never touch the ground and therefore the Basilisk does not see
them.'

The interactions are so complicated! I need to make a chart to see if I
left anything else out.

The Editor in Yellow wrote on Thu, Apr 11, 2002 09:05 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
Addition to Interactions made as requested. Did you also mean to add a diagonal step move to the Go Away? <p> <br> <i>(Fnord)</i>

gnohmon wrote on Thu, Apr 11, 2002 09:11 PM UTC:
Under 'compelled Moves', there should be a final notice that 

'Sometimes it is possible to make a saving move with some other piece than
the compelled one. For example, suppose that your Basilisk has been pushed
onto an occupied square, and so is compelled to move off, but has no legal
move; if you can engulf your own Basilisk with a leaf pile, you have
removed the condition causing the compulsion, and therefore you have saved
the game.'

And, under 'Interactions',

'If a Go Away which is compelled to flee an enemy Ghast is next to the
Ghast, it can scream GO AWAY! instead of moving. It ends its turn one move
further away than it started and so it has met the compulsion to flee.

A Leaf Pile which is next to a Ghast can engulf the Ghast; as it then no
longer needs to flee, its compulsion has been satisfied.'

The Editor in Yellow wrote on Thu, Apr 11, 2002 09:21 PM UTC:
Thy bidding done once more, Oh Gnohmon.

John Lawson wrote on Sat, Apr 13, 2002 05:04 AM UTC:
I have rarely seen so much chatter as for this game. (N.B. there is
significant commentary on Nemoroth in the Yellow Journalism thread.)

A couple of points:

Is Nemoroth a chess variant?  If gnohmon says it is, who am I to gainsay
him?  I am an 'inclusionist' when it comes to chess variants, anyway.  It
actually seems more like an Amazons variant, and there are other more
chess-like games that make use of the 'shrinking board' mechanism, but what
the heck.  (Bob Abbott, who invented Ultima, did not think it was chess,
because it did not use replacement captures.  He was an 'exclusionist'.)

When Nemoroth is refined, and the rules settle down, may we expect pages on
'The Value of the Nemoroth Pieces' and 'Nemoroth with Different Armies'? 
Should we reserve the name www.nemorothvariants.com?

If interest remains high, how about the CVP sponsor a contest in Nemoroth
problem composition?

gnohmon wrote on Sun, Apr 14, 2002 03:50 AM UTC:
'rarely seen as much chatter' -- it's a combination of two things, I think;
first the story is pretty good. You must understand that after I wrote it,
I also read it, and even I was affected by it. The idea of the ancient
Lovecraftian city that existed before the world was finished being built
kinda grabs me. And the details that make it real (by the way, the reason
that Nemoroth was destroyed when Luna was floated up into the sky after
being built in its harbor was that the project was given to the lowest
bidder) -- well,when I wrote it, in the heat of the moment I thought it was
merely corroborative detail intended to add artistic verisimilitude to an
otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative, but when I read it, it sounded
so suspension-of-disbeliefable and I could picture the city and the harbor
and the Moon and the little boats carrying pieces of craters to the work
site, and golly gee gosh how amazing.

The second thing is that the game itself is pretty interesting. Although I
was so caught up in the story that I really did a bad job of describing the
game, it's non-trivial and it's very different (in terms of how it feels to
play it) than most chesslike or ultimalike games.

This *will* cause chatter, even in the most silent of times.

Since The Game of Nemoroth came out shortly after I had said strongly that
there wasn't enough chatter, well, what would you expect. :-)

'values of Nemoroth pieces' -- quite impossible. Likewise Nemoroth with
Different Armies. The various non-capture effects have values that are imho
impossible to estimate numerically. The useful Go Away has a value that
depends entirely on what it can push, just for one example. 

In practice, I think the Zombie is most valuable, and the second tier
contains the Go Away, the Basilisk, and the Leaf Pile. The Leaf Pile is so
easy to use; an advanced Basilisk, even if it gets petrified (but you gotta
calculate if the foe can push a Leaf Pile onto it!) can be crippling, and
the Go Away transforms positions completely.

But even the humble Human is strong. Leaving one's Basilisk at home invites
the Humand to advance and petrify themselves in blocking positions. 

The Ghast is so powerful that it is outside the range of values. However, I
have not yet played a game against myself where I captured a Ghast, so in
effect the Ghast is always neutralized by the enemy Ghast. Pushing a statue
to d4 or d5 neutralizes the enemy Ghast and allows you to reposition from
b6 to f6; this happened once and was very strong. All in all, I like the
way the game works.

John Lawson wrote on Mon, Apr 15, 2002 03:00 AM UTC:
''values of Nemoroth pieces' -- quite impossible.' --- I was just joking
here.  I actually can't imagine how one could assign values, considering
all the interactions.  In regular chess, the only interaction is capture.

'Likewise Nemoroth with Different Armies. The various non-capture effects
have values that are imho impossible to estimate numerically.'  --- True,
but it is possible to imagine other interactions that might be interesting.
 Several spring to mind (nature abhors a vacuum) but they could be as
simple as ichor with different effects.  One could even handicap by
allowing the ichor of each player to dissipate at different rates.

'The useful Go Away has a value that depends entirely on what it can push,
just for one example.' --- A trivially true statement.  Ceteris paribus, a 
Knight that can capture a Queen is worth more than one that can capture a
Bishop.  I consider values to be a statistical guide, not a received truth,
fun as they may be to study and play with.  (Of course, I stink as a chess
player, so what's my opinion worth?)

It is likely that I may soon be playing Nemoroth against another human via
email.  We will be sure to post our observations.

As a sidebar, there is really no assurance that any entity with which one
communicates via email alone is actually human.  We could all be alien
anthropologists, who, thinking we are studying humans, are studying each
other.  The resulting theses would be feces.

John Lawson wrote on Tue, Apr 16, 2002 04:37 AM UTC:
I am reviewing the document http://www.panix.com/~gnohmon/nemofull.html and
I need to know if I have interpreted it correctly.


Statements:

[A Leaf Pile] can move onto a non-ichorous non-Ghast square which contains
a Mummy and at least one other piece.

When a Leaf Pile makes its first voluntary move after engulfing something,
it leaves behind a single Mummy; notice that this means no Mummy is left
behind when a Leaf Pile that is digesting something is pushed.

Conclusion:

If a Leaf Pile engulfs a multiple occupancy square including a Mummy, and
then is pushed, there is no Mummy remaining on that square.


Statement:

If the ichor will evaporate after you make your move but before your
opponent moves, you can ignore it.

Conclusion:

That ichor actually lasts nine plies, not five moves.


There will be more questions.

gnohmon wrote on Tue, Apr 16, 2002 01:34 PM UTC:
1. Yes, the mummy has been engulfed.

2. 'ichor actually lasts nine plies' ---- hmmm.

This relates to the specific case where a piece is compelled to move off.
The ichor certainly lasts ten plies, so in this situation the ichor must
have been created during your opponent's move. My thought was that since it
will finish its evaporation at the end of your move, you can effectively
satisfy the compulsion to move off by simply staying where you are; and at
the end of your move the result is that you are no longer standing on icky
ichor.

John Lawson wrote on Tue, Apr 16, 2002 02:29 PM UTC:
Wait, there's more.

Statements:

A Leaf Pile is subject to the effects of a Basilisk, and a petrified Leaf
Pile cannot engulf anything. 

A petrified Leaf Pile can still engulf things that are pushed onto it, and
it can still engulf things it is pushed onto. 

Conclusion:

Second statement is true, and more fun.

Corollary:

A Go Away pushing a petrified Leaf Pile around can vacuum up all sorts of
impedimenta.


Statement:

Any mobile piece except a Zombie within two squares of a Ghast must flee
the Ghast, and no mobile piece except a Zombie may move of its own accord
to a Ghast Square; the squares within the Ghast's range are called Ghast
Squares. 

Clarification requested:

If several pieces are under compulsion to flee a Ghast, but the Ghast moves
off before the compulsions can all be satisfied, the compulsions no longer
exist if the compelled pieces are no longer on Ghast squares.

Additional statements:

When you are under compulsion, you may make any move which removes the
compulsion, but if you cannot satisfy the compulsion of at least one piece,
you lose. 

The Human moves one square sideways, or one square straight forward, or one
square diagonally forward, but only to an empty non-ichorous square. 

Hypothetical situation:

Alabaster Human on f5, Obsidian Ghast moves to f6, creating compulsion for
human to flee.  Assume there is no other Alabaster piece under compulsion
this move, and no saving move is possible.  The Human can only move to e5,
e6, g5, or g6.  These squares are still adjacent to the Obsidian Ghast.  Is
this a win for Obsidian due to stalemate by compulsion?

Anonymous wrote on Tue, Apr 16, 2002 07:56 PM UTC:
Lovecraftian/Chess related story:

http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Hangar/5176/misc/pirc01.htm

John Lawson wrote on Wed, Apr 17, 2002 12:18 AM UTC:
OK, now I'm going to try to clarify ichor:

          Alabaster             Obsidian

          Wounded Fiend moves
Move 1    Ichor deposited       Ichor ply 2
          Ichor ply 1

Move 2    Ichor ply 3           Ichor ply 4

Move 3    Ichor ply 5           Ichor ply 6

Move 4    Ichor ply 7           Ichor ply 8

Move 5    Ichor ply 9           Ichor ply 10
                                Obsidian pieces need not 
                                move off ichorated square

OR

          Alabaster             Obsidian

                                Wounded Fiend moves
Move 1                          Ichor deposited
                                Ichor ply 1

Move 2    Ichor ply 2           Ichor ply 3

Move 3    Ichor ply 4           Ichor ply 5

Move 4    Ichor ply 6           Ichor ply 7

Move 5    Ichor ply 8           Ichor ply 9           

Move 6    Ichor ply 10
          Alabaster pieces need not 
          move off ichorated square


Does this look right?

John Lawson wrote on Wed, Apr 17, 2002 12:36 AM UTC:
Note that the moving Wounded Fiend in the prior comment could belong to either player if it was forced to flee by a Go Away.

Moussambani wrote on Wed, Apr 17, 2002 08:07 AM UTC:
Quoth the Betza: 'The Leaf Pile cannot move of its own accord onto an
ichorous square, nor onto a square containing a statue, nor onto a square
containing a single mummy but no other pieces. It can move onto a
non-ichorous non-Ghast square which contains a mummy and at least one other
piece.'

Does that mean that a Leaf Pile can move of its own accord onto a square
containing TWO mummies? That's my interpretation. (NOTE: Two mummies can be
on the same square by pushing one onto another)

David Howe wrote on Wed, Apr 17, 2002 03:59 PM UTC:
More comments may be found in the <a href='http://www.chessvariants.com/index/listcomments.php?subjectid=YellowJournalism'>YellowJournalism</a> discussion.

Moussambani wrote on Wed, Apr 17, 2002 04:38 PM UTC:
What's a bit surprising is that compelled moves are also 'of its own accord'

gnohmon wrote on Thu, Apr 18, 2002 10:17 AM UTC:
To flee means that the piece must end its move geometrically
further away from
the Ghast than it was when it started its move; for example,
if your Ghast is on b3, you can move your Human from b2 to c2 because
the geometrical distance between the two pieces has increased.

Clarification has been made.

gnohmon wrote on Thu, Apr 18, 2002 10:24 AM UTC:
'compelled move of its own accord' -- yes, because the owner chooses which compelled piece is to be moved, and if the piece has more than one legal move the owner gets to choose its destination.

gnohmon wrote on Thu, Apr 18, 2002 10:44 AM UTC:
Does that mean that a Leaf Pile can move of its own accord onto a square
containing TWO mummies? That's my interpretation. (NOTE: Two mummies can
be
on the same square by pushing one onto another)

Yes, it means that. I'm not sure if it was right. As I think of it, it
seems to me that this rule was generated in a momentary panic when I
myself
misread the rules and pearef that a leaf pile could not recapture (it can

recapture because when a Leaf Pile engulfs things, there is nothing
on the square but the Leaf Pile itself; the Mummy is not generated until
the Leaf Pile moves on.

Now that I think of it, it seems to me that this adds too many rules and 
clarifications for too little benefit. If the presence of a Mummy or a
statue makes a crowded square safe from voluntary engulfment, doesn't
this actually add to the interest of the game?

Pending your responses, I believe I will change this back to the
original,
where, as you may recall, it was stated that the only way to mummify a 
petrified Basilisk was tu push a Leaf Pile onto it.

25 comments displayed

Earlier Reverse Order LaterLatest

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.