Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

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

Ultima. Game where each type of piece has a different capturing ability. Also called Baroque. (8x8, Cells: 64) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]

Anonymous wrote on Thu, Nov 22, 2001 12:00 AM UTC:

I have known of Ultima for more than 30 yrs & I apppreciate yr 
authoritative treatment.  I was introduced to it at the Providence 
Chess Club where it was played occasionally while waiting for a
chess opponent.
I have reservations about Abbott's corrective of the 'N' move limit, 
but I hv hd no chance to try it out.
Thank u for asembling the info & presenting it so attractively.
	>pouliot[at]mailcity.com<

Gert Greeuw wrote on Mon, Nov 19, 2001 12:00 AM UTC:Good ★★★★

Ultima is very interesting, I play it with Zillions (not strong).
However,
I tried to find game annotations and I could not find any. It would be
nice
if you could give some games and some open sources. I wonder if there
exists opening and endgame theory.

Gert Greeuw
grw@geodelft.nl

David Howe wrote on Wed, Apr 17, 2002 03:47 PM UTC:

Ultima Variants. See <a href="http://www.chessvariants.com/index/displaycomment.php?commentid=243">Peter Aronson's comment</a>. Ultimate Ultima. See <a href="http://www.chessvariants.com/index/displaycomment.php?commentid=237">Gnohmon's comment</a>.

Jesse Plymale wrote on Wed, May 1, 2002 05:38 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★

Thanks for your good treatment of Ultima. It seems like this game is a common assignment for computer science students in AI classes. My programming class just had to make a 'Baroque Chess' program, and I put mine on my web page as an applet, just in case you want to link to it. <a href='http://people.tamu.edu/~jwp2654'>http://people.tamu.edu/~jwp2654</a> Thanks again for the help your site offered in designing the program. BTW, I did cite your website in my program report. :-) Jesse Plymale jesseplymale@tamu.edu http://people.tamu.edu/~jwp2654/

Mike Winiberg wrote on Tue, Sep 9, 2003 10:13 PM UTC:Good ★★★★

I notice that Robert Abbott has had some correspondance where he agrees on
some simple changes to the Ultima rules to correct the flaw that he saw
in
the original game design (that defence was more effective than offence).
Would it be possible to add an Ultima variant here that incorporates the
'revised' rules?

Having played Ultima (very intermittently) since my schooldays, I have to
say that I think the proposed revisions make sense...

regards

mike

Roberto Lavieri wrote on Thu, Sep 11, 2003 02:40 AM UTC:Good ★★★★

Robert Abbott has to officially say what are the definitive changes. I have ever been interested in ULTIMA, and I have played it enough for feel myself some of the problems with the game play, but it is necessary to say that regadless of its problems, ULTIMA is a great game. When cleared the new rules officially, perhaps I can try an implementation on Zillions, and in every case, the game can be played NOW with the new rules (if desired) using the PBM system...

Peter Aronson wrote on Thu, Sep 11, 2003 04:50 PM UTC:

I wonder if anyone has told Robert Abbott the various Ultima derived games that have been posted on this site? There are (at the very least): <ul> <li><a href='http://www.chessvariants.com/other.dir/rococo.html'>Rococo</a> by Peter Aronson and David Howe. <li><a href='http://www.chessvariants.com/other.dir/stupid.html'>Stupid</a> by Paul Monckton. <li><a href='http://www.chessvariants.com/large.dir/optima.html'>Optima</a> by Michael Howe. <li><a href='http://www.chessvariants.com/dpieces.dir/maxima/maxima.html'>Maxima</a> by Roberto Lavieri. </ul> There are probably others I didn't think of (I did not include all of the games that use pieces from Ultima, which are legion). These games are also 'repairs' of Ultima in a sense, and perhaps appeal to me more than weakening the Long Leapers and Coordinators.

Antoine Fourrière wrote on Thu, Sep 11, 2003 08:45 PM UTC:

One thing I disagree with Ultima (and Rococo or Maxima) is the presence of
two Long Leapers and one Withdrawer, because a Long Leaper is even
stronger than an Advancer. The Immobilizer and Pincer Pawns are also too
strong, (Maxima demotes them slightly.) As for the Coordinator, I am not
so sure.
In that respect, Chess is very balanced.
(2 Knights are slightly inferior to 2 Bishops, which are slightly inferior
to 8 Pawns, which are slightly inferior to 1 Queen, which is slightly
inferior to 2 Rooks.)
I would suggest to use a King, a Withdrawer, an orthogonal Coordinator, an
orthogonal Immobilizer, two diagonal Chameleons, two Leapers capturing
like the Knights in Peter Aronson's Jumping Chess, and eight Pincer Pawns
moving one square forward (two if they are on their starting position).
Castling, promotion (as is already the case in Rococo) and en passant are
back. The Immobilizer and the Chameleon still immobilize all adjacent
pieces, but the Chameleon captures a Pincer Pawn with a diagonal move.
Maybe adding one or two Advancers in hand (perhaps moving like a King)
would constitute a good subvariant.

Peter Aronson wrote on Thu, Sep 11, 2003 09:14 PM UTC:

Well, Antoine, tastes do vary, which probably explains why we have quite so many games on this site. I tend to like aggressive games with furious play myself (although not all of my designs have that characteristic). As for there being two of the strongest piece, well, that's true for Shataranj and Chaturanga too, and those games certainly have some history.

Jared McComb wrote on Thu, Sep 11, 2003 11:52 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★

I have always been an Ultima fan. This game was the major inspiration for Rook Mania (which incidentally spent about three years in development, and which I am developing a more 'traditional' version of). It amy be true that this game favors defense over offense, and it may not be a perfect game, but the concept -- having all the pieces move similarly, but capture differently -- is a purely beautiful one. I also agree with Mr. Aronson that the imbalance of pieces is not necessarily bad, although I do not necessarily agree with his analogy -- the reason those games faded out of popularity was probably in favor of more balanced ones.

Roberto Lavieri wrote on Fri, Sep 12, 2003 12:26 AM UTC:

Well, it can be proposed an ULTIMA modification by committee, but it is the need to stablish what the objectives are. Some of us want aggressive games, others can be inclined to clarity, or a balanced game, or looking for special dynamics. My position is near Peter´s: there is some variety of well thought games, each one with a particularity, trying to correct problems as interpreted by the developers with the own optics of each one. Sincerelly, I think that all of them are very good games, as it is, in its style, ULTIMA. New good variants can come, and some of them can be good games too. It is always possible to work in a collective project to modify ULTIMA rules mantaining as possible its original essence. The process need to be clarified in base to objectives previously stablished, and it is imperative a methodic testing of the results. Is it necessary?. Think in the answer to this question, and then make suggestions, if it is the case, some of us may be interested in collaborate in the project. For a while, I´m going to continue enjoying Rococo, Stupid, Optima, Maxima, and ULTIMA. Certainly, I like these games, all of them are enjoyable.

Paul Townsend wrote on Sat, Oct 11, 2003 09:32 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★

During my final year in school (1972/73) I was one of a group who
experimented with all sorts of chess variations, including Ultima. Our
source for the rules was not very good, even the name of the game was
wrong ('Ultama') and there were several flaws in the rules as we had
them - we had to debug them ourselves to make a playable game since we
did
not know of any 'official' source. We got one 'debug' right (the
Withdrawer must move directly away from the piece it is capturing) and
two
wrong: (a) the pawns captured by sandwiching the enemy piece between
*pawns*, not between a pawn and any piece, (b) the chameleon could
capture
pawns even on a diagonal move. In one contrived scenario, the chameleon
captured seven pieces at once by (a) starting off by withdrawing from the
withdrawer, (b) en route leaping a long-leaper, (c) landing in a
quadruple
pawn-sandwich and (d) co-ordinating with its own king to grab the
co-ordinator.

Naturally we tried variations. In one we pinched two large (matching)
corks from the chemistry lab, painted one black and introduced them to
the
game as the Protectors. A piece could move onto a Protector and, for as
long as it stayed there, was immune to capture. Another variation was to
rename the pawns Othellos - a piece captured by them was removed from the
board and replaced by an identical friendly piece.

And we didn't like the name 'co-ordinator' and tried to think of an
alternatve without success. Many years later I coined the Sindarin
(Elvish) word 'palangurth' based on two radicals meaning 'death from
afar' with reference to its method of capture.

George Moralidis wrote on Mon, Dec 8, 2003 12:59 PM UTC:

It looks very interesting. But since i haven't tried it i can't rate
it.Just a silly question: in the Chameleon animation the example states
that the Chameleon captures the enemy Withdrawer (at c1) by moving away
from it.

But how can that be possible? since 'The Withdrawer moves passively as
an
Orthodox Queen', and a long-leaper in c3 is blocking the way to an
orthodox queen(since queens cannot leap). Does this mean that the
chameleon can mimic two pieces at the same time?

Jared McComb wrote on Mon, Dec 8, 2003 04:09 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★

Yes, that assumption would be correct. In fact, in the illustration, the white chameleon imitates four different types at once and puts the black King into check, since it could capture the King by replacement. This, however, brings another question to mind: Must a chameleon be adjacent to a King to capture it? Since there is an orthogonal restriction for them when capturing pawns, is there also a one-space restriction when checking the King? --Jared

Michael Nelson wrote on Mon, Dec 8, 2003 04:27 PM UTC:

The web page states that the Chameleon can check the King from an adjacent
square and this is correct per Abbott's rules for Ultima in 'Abbott's
New Card Games'.  He states that a Chameleon may capture a piece if it
mimics it's move in direction and distance. So a pawn can only be
captured by a Rook move and a King can only be checked from an adjacent
square.

Leaping a Long Leaper does not invalidate the mimic of another piece. This
seems illogical at first glance but really is logical.  The idea is that
making a capture of one piece does not prevent the capture of others. If
the Chameleon had made a Rook move away from a Withdrawer that sandwiched
a Pawn, both captures would be allowed.  Abbott believed that leaping a
Long Leaper should not preclude other captures.

Anonymous wrote on Wed, Dec 10, 2003 05:08 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★

How does chameleon capture chameleon?

Peter Aronson wrote on Wed, Dec 10, 2003 05:11 PM UTC:

<blockquote> How does chameleon capture chameleon? </blockquote> A Chameleon may not capture a Chameleon.

🕸📝Fergus Duniho wrote on Fri, Jan 23, 2004 04:15 AM UTC:

The Wikipedia page on Baroque Chess currently asserts that Robert Abbott
did not invent the game, as can be discovered by reading the Fairy
Chessmen by Lewis Padgett. I expect this is a bunch of nonsense and have
explained why in the discussion area for Wikipedia's Baroque Chess page.
However, I have not read the Fairy Chessmen and cannot get ahold of a
copy. If anyone has read it, would you take a moment to either confirm my
suspicions or to tell me how Ultima is described in this book? If someone
will confirm my suspicions that the Wikipedia author doesn't know what he
is talking about, I will go ahead and change that page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baroque_chess

Roberto Lavieri wrote on Thu, Feb 5, 2004 12:51 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★

Ultima is a great game, regardless the opinion of the author, Robert Abbot, about 'what is wrong with Ultima'. The case is that many people around the world plays Ultima, and accept the game as it is. The game play is closed almost all the time, and it is not easy win this game, and draw is the most possible result in many games between two experienced players playing more or less well. If someone wants an improvement that add richness to the game play without the loss of the philosophy and main ideas behind Ultima, perhaps the most simple way is introducing two pieces missing with Queen movement: First, the Advancer, and second, The FIDE-QUEEN!. The idea is reduce the number of Long-Leapers and Chameleons to only one each, it is not clear the need of two of them, as pointed out by Antoine Fourriere. I have pre-tested a version with this new elements, and the game play is nice, more dynamic than the original game, but you can feel the essence of Ultima regardless the new changes. But this idea, and perhaps any other, could find resistance by the relatively numerous fans of this game, that continue playing it, as originally born.

George Moralidis wrote on Fri, Feb 13, 2004 05:06 AM UTC:

Can you be a bit more specific? Where exactly would you place the Advancer
and where would the Queen be placed? Would the Advancer change anyhow? You
could make your suggestions to Ultima's creator himself at this page:
http://www.logicmazes.com/games/ultima.html

Roberto Lavieri wrote on Mon, Feb 16, 2004 05:21 PM UTC:

ULTIMATUM, an ULTIMA variant. The proposal is simple: One Chameleon, one Long-Leaper. Add a FIDE-Queen and an Advancer per band. The suggested initial setup is s follows: (White): Immobilizer in a1, Withdrawer, Long-Leaper, King, Queen, Chameleon, Advancer and Coordinator, respectively in b1, c1,...,h1. For Black mirrored arrays, with Coordinator in a8, Advancer in b8, Chameleon in c8, followed by Queen, King, Long-Leaper, Withdrawer and Immobilizer. I doubt about the suicide rule, it would be not as good in this variant as in Ultima. The game play of this variant is very dynamic, but essence of ULTIMA is preserved, and it seems to be more inclined to attack than defense, at least while the new pieces are on the board. Game play in the edges is less effective, due the Queens and Advancers, and Immobilizer is more vulnerable. BETA-TESTERS NEEDED: If you want to test the variant, I can send to you a ZRF BETA, for tests purposes now (it has to be refined a little yet, but it is perfectly functional). If you are interested, e-Mail me. My adress: rlavieri2003@yahoo.com , and I´ll send to you the compressed file.

Roberto Lavieri wrote on Tue, Feb 17, 2004 12:43 PM UTC:Good ★★★★

Michael, I think the Leo is a good idea, but it is the need of diminish a
little its power in this game. Unfortunatelly, Leo can conduct many stages
of the openings with attack of pieces and checkmate threats, with an
initial advantage for White. On possibility is that it moves like Queen,
but limiting its action: it need an ADJACENT intervening piece for attack
the next positions. I´ll try both of them in the next days. As it can be
easely noted when you try the variant, FIDE-Queen is very powerful in
Ultima, surprisingly it looks much more powerful here than in FIDE-Chess,
and it is certainly more powerful than the Long-Leaper. Advancer is a
little weaker, but LEO would be at least as powerful than the Queen.

Peter: I have dowloaded the Rococo variants. I have not tried it yet, but
I have the intuitive idea that the Archer is great for this game, but I
have serious doubts about the Bird. Other thing: I have my own Gallactic
Graphics and board for Rococo. I´ll send a copy to David and you, although
Alfaerie are very nice too.

Peter Aronson wrote on Tue, Feb 17, 2004 04:21 PM UTC:

Roberto, I'm not surprised that the FIDE Queen seems very powerful in Ultima -- all of the alternate forms of capture used in Ultima are weaker than replacement. Also, with a lack of other pieces capturing by replacement, guarding pieces isn't as easy as in FIDE Chess. The Bird is almost certainly too powerful, but one of the pleasures of experimenting is to try such pieces and see what they tell you about the game and those forms of capture.

Greg Johnson wrote on Fri, Mar 26, 2004 01:29 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★

I had been looking for the rules of Ultima for the longest time. It is heartening to see it included here. I also feel that the rule description format is excellent.