[ 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⇩ Later⇧ Latest⇩

The Maharaja and the Sepoys. Powerful lonely king against a full set of pieces. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]

Mason Green wrote on Wed, Feb 23, 2005 11:17 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★

I think this game is quite good. It's so easy to learn, I taught it to my
aunt in a few minutes. After that, we played a few games, alternating
sides. Neither white nor black seem to have an advantage. The games also
last only about half as long as orthodox chess, so I think this game is
good for anyone who's pressed for time.

Of the 'unequal' variants, this was the first, and because it's such a
good one, I think it deserves to be a Recognized Variant.

Ken Cox wrote on Wed, Oct 5, 2005 05:11 PM UTC:Good ★★★★

I'm pretty sure that Martin Gardner, in one of his Scientific American 'Mathematical Games' columns, provides a forced win for the non-maharaja player. This column was collected in one of his books.

The winning method involves advancing the pawns and pieces in a sequence such that the safe spaces for the maharaja are whittled down. At every step all pawns and pieces are protected, so the maharaja can't make any captures - nor can it ever check the king.

For example, the sequence started by pushing the h-pawn down the board to the seventh rank. The pawn can't be captured, since the rook will take the maharaja. The maharaja can't first take the rook, since any position from which it could do so is protected. When the pawn advance is done, the whole of the h-column (except h8) is unavailable to the maharaja. You don't know just where it is, but it's not on one of those spaces.

This continued for about 30 moves, and at the end of that sequence, the maharaja could only be safely standing on three or four spaces. For each such space, there was then a further sequence of two or three moves that would capture the maharaja.

CharlesFort wrote on Wed, Oct 5, 2005 11:38 PM UTC:

However, all it takes for Maharaja to win is a 10x10 board against the orthodox 16 units.

Roberto Lavieri wrote on Thu, Oct 6, 2005 12:00 PM UTC:

I performed a few tests in 10x10, White playing with conventional 'centered' pieces, changing the Knights by 'Guards' (unroyal Kings), and the game result does not seem to be as trivial as it appears. Excellent problem for analysis!.

David Paulowich wrote on Thu, Apr 12, 2007 03:17 PM UTC:

My 1996 variant of The Maharaja and the Sepoys, Tiger Hunt, removes the Black Queen, bringing the two armies closer together in strength.

Michael Wilson wrote on Thu, Aug 2, 2007 08:19 PM UTC:

I'm not sure whether Martin Gardner did it or not, but I proved a black win myself once. My first version took 52 moves; I whittled it down to about 33, but that version had a branch in the moves. The 52-move version was a single list of moves that could be played without regard to the white moves. If anybody is dreadfully interested, I could track down the move list and post it, but that would ruin the game for everybody else.

David Paulowich wrote on Thu, Aug 2, 2007 10:09 PM UTC:

I am going to take the [2005-10-05] comment of 'CharlesFort' a step further: Maharaja and the Sepoys on a 12x12 board! See Chess on a 12 by 12 board for the location of the 16 Black pieces. Now I am not claiming a victory for the Sepoys here, but they should be able to defend themselves and secure a draw. Try moving each Rook back one square (to c11 and h11) and the Knights to b11 and i11. All Black pieces are now protected, so the Rooks can simply slide back and forth along rank 11.

Jeremy Good wrote on Thu, Aug 2, 2007 11:14 PM UTC:

I'd very much like to see your proof, thanks. It wouldn't ruin the game except for people who were anxious to wade through the solution.

John Smith wrote on Fri, Dec 12, 2008 04:13 AM UTC:

How many Maharajas does it take to have a Maharaja win?

George Duke wrote on Fri, Dec 12, 2008 11:28 PM UTC:

Offhand from studying it a long time ago, there are two interesting points. Make the board 10x10 instead and one Maharaja should win, because he can backstab more easily. Second, surely two Maharajas win on 8x8. Martin Gardner ran Maharajah in column and book.

John Smith wrote on Fri, Dec 12, 2008 11:31 PM UTC:

That's what I thought. How about Cardinal and Marshall instead of Maharajas?

George Duke wrote on Fri, Dec 12, 2008 11:35 PM UTC:

No way, they lose. and that's not, no way they lose. No weigh: they lose. in programming one comma may not compile

John Smith wrote on Fri, Dec 12, 2008 11:40 PM UTC:

How many extra moves for a bare FIDE King when vs. a FIDE army does it take to balance a game?

George Duke wrote on Fri, Dec 12, 2008 11:45 PM UTC:

Almost certainly even seven is not enough. It is similar to TMatS, in strategy Black just staying as completely connected as possible. How can Bare King mate anyway? He cannot, and once he crosses over behind the lines, there are promotion after promotion. (Well, let's see, sometimes with pieces in the way, eight or nine or ten moves help. But the answer is still the same: White loses with 32 moves even.)

John Smith wrote on Sat, Dec 13, 2008 04:33 AM UTC:

Can't the 7-moving King instantly capture the regular one in the Maharaja and the Sepoys set-up? I'm assuming that multiple captures, null moves, igui, and moving into check are legal, as long as the move does not end in check.

George Duke wrote on Sat, Dec 13, 2008 06:56 PM UTC:

I was afraid of that. That's the far harder problem. How many moves? Answer next week. Now it becomes somewhat reminiscent of Mamra, for starters.

David Paulowich wrote on Sat, Dec 13, 2008 07:58 PM UTC:

Some day soon I will get around to posting a preset for Chess on a 12 by 12 board. How would The Maharaja and the Sepoys play out on a 12 by 12 board? I am going to disagree with the [2005-10-06 Roberto Lavieri] and [2008-12-12 George Duke] comments, as I believe that Black can draw this game by moving his Rooks up to rank 12 and sliding them back and forth. Even after losing his two Knights, the Black King is adequately protected by his two Bishops (on their starting squares).

EDIT: I already wrote essentially the same thing back on [2007-08-02]. The Chess on a 12 by 12 board preset now exists - I am trying to work my way through the submission process.

John Smith wrote on Sun, Dec 14, 2008 01:10 AM UTC:

A Xiang Qi version of this would be interesting, because pieces do not connect as well. The Maharajah could move as a Yitong, with the ability to move as an Advisor or Elephant in their respective bindings. This is probably too powerful. Black, of course, would go first.

George Duke wrote on Tue, Dec 16, 2008 06:12 PM UTC:

John Smith asks the puzzle, ''How many extra moves for a bare FIDE King...to balance a game?'' As he points out, 7 as (6+1) is plenty because on the first move Sayonara Black King. Now what about 4 as (3+1)? Of course, same thing on move two after e1-e5, sayonara, whatever Black chooses in one chance to respond. That eliminates 5 and 6 too of course, and only leaves 2 and 3. That means either one(1) or two(2) extra moves. Let's try two extra moves, and the opening is still the most likely venue to make the decision which balances best. Try White opening e1-e4. Now any one of rank 5 squares b5, c5, d5, e5, f5, g5 and h5 is checkmate. White cannot cover all of those in one move, and Black can reach any of them on move two. So, it is checkmate on White's second move. (If Black tries opening a square in front of King, Black just stays put (null move) or steps one.) That shows enhancement of 2 to 3 (as 2+1) is pretty unbalanced in favour of White, as they say, busted, cooked. Is enhancement of one only to (1+1) very balanced? Two-moving bare King as (1+1) is the best we can do in this game, and that is the answer with Smith's logical rules (13.Dec.08), but which way is it tilted now, for follow-up? Should Black win, as against Maharajah? Or should White with the powerful King?

John Smith wrote on Wed, Dec 17, 2008 01:21 AM UTC:

Ralph Betza says that the 2-moving King loses. What about with MatS pieces?

John Smith wrote on Fri, Dec 19, 2008 03:36 AM UTC:

I wonder if it would balance the game if the Maharaja could convert pieces, Shogi-style. Or how about the Monster King?

Larry Smith wrote on Fri, Dec 19, 2008 03:54 AM UTC:

How about simply using Shogi-style Pawns?

John Smith wrote on Fri, Dec 19, 2008 04:38 AM UTC:

How would that make a difference?

Larry Smith wrote on Fri, Dec 19, 2008 07:32 AM UTC:

If the Maharaja had a row of Shogi Pawns, might this balance the game?

Just a thought.

john smith wrote on Sat, Apr 25, 2009 04:15 AM UTC:Average ★★★

Is the Maharaja subject to stalemate? What if the Maharaja is not in check but has no 'legal' move that does not put him in check, is that a victory for black or a stalemate?

25 comments displayed

~~Earlier~~ ⇧Reverse Order⇩ Later⇧ Latest⇩

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.