[ 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 ]

Ratings & Comments

⇧Earliest ⇧Earlier ⇧Reverse Order⇩ Later⇧ Latest⇩

Archoniclastic Chess. Pieces are augmented on squares of their color. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]

JCL wrote on Sat, Mar 30, 2002 05:00 PM UTC:

As long as we are flogging this theme, how about Gondoliers Chess (two
Kings, and no one knows which is the real one), Buttercup Chess (exchange
King with random Pawn at start of game), Sorcerer Chess (each piece is
attracted to randomly chosen other piece), Lord High Executioner Chess
(must mate self before opponent, too drawish), Lysistrata Chess (Queen
refuses to perform, whoops, wrong playwright), and...and ('Basingstoke,
John') Aah yes, Basingstoke it is. --JCL

Anonymous wrote on Sat, Mar 30, 2002 04:00 PM UTC:

<HR>In Basingstoke Chess, each turn after making a legal move a player may add one new rule (chosen from a pre-agreed list), or may say 'Basingstoke', which resets the rules to FIDE default. This would be sort of like Progressive Chess, but in a meta manner of progressing. <HR>

Anonymous wrote on Sat, Mar 30, 2002 03:00 PM UTC:

<HR>What is the state of a bare king? Naked, of course. Ask me something more difficult. <HR>

JCL wrote on Sat, Mar 30, 2002 02:00 PM UTC:

By the way, Race Chess is kind of like Rollerball Chess, which was an entry
into some contest or other, and is actually kind of neat. You realize that
the regular annual contests would be much more boring if Hans were born on
February 29?  (Yes, I know.  I pirated that idea.)  --JCL

JCL wrote on Sat, Mar 30, 2002 01:00 PM UTC:

The very concept of Ruddigore Chess leads immediately to, 'What is the
state of a bare King?'  The mind boggles, at least my mind does.  --JCL

gnohmon wrote on Sat, Mar 30, 2002 12:00 PM UTC:

<HR>Too many new ideas here to reply to, so I'll addd some new spices to the pot instead. In Race Chess, both players have the same 'forward' direction. (No relation to _The Forward_, which is down on East Broadway by Canal Street.) In Ruddigore Chess, I suppose you must make one capture per N moves or else one of your own pieces succumbs to the curse. Of course, if a man can't capture his own pieces then whose pieces can he capture? For the final touch, make it a shogi/chessgi variant with drops (there's a gi in ruddigore, just backwards). Would 'Forward Chess' be the name of the feebback variant where more advanced pieces are stronger? (No relation to -- O, I said that.) Ruddigore: one capture per move or else; captured pieces become reserves; you can capture your own; if you fail to make a capture you must choose one of your own which perishes -- gone from the game, not in reserve. Notice that when you place a reserve it is not a capture, therefore some other piece perishes. Ruddigore Chess has not been playtested. Left-right increments combined with rank increments suggest a game where each piece can have 64 different possible movement patterns depending on which square it occupies. If these were extremely regular, and therefore the player had some chance of remembering, the game would perhaps come close to being almost nearly playable. Chatter is good.-- gnohmon<HR>

PBA wrote on Fri, Mar 29, 2002 08:00 PM UTC:

Oops, only added three squares to the Knight, maybe would a forward cH (capturing (0,3) leap) be too strong? PBA

PBA wrote on Fri, Mar 29, 2002 07:00 PM UTC:

John, I was going to reply to your, er, ah, proposal, but I find I can't think of anything appropriate to say . . . There seems to be Ruddigore in the air, since Ralph's submitted but as-yet-unpublished (I'm getting to it!) Chatter Chess also references it, not to mention the Ruthven (Negative Relay Knight) in 'Worse than Useless'. I wonder where I left my soundtrack CD? Balancing a Feebback and a non-Feebback army? One idea is to add all of th missing attacks from the back to the front: <ul> <li> Kings are missing three back attacks, so they can capture (but not move without capturing) straight-forward or diagonally-forward two squares. </li><li> Queens are missing three attack lines back, so they can capture (but not move without capturing) in the forward four directions as Rhinos (four instead of three as it is symmetrical and because of duplicated squares). </li><li> Rooks only have a single attack line missing, so they get to capture (but not move without capturing) as a Halfling Bishop on the forward diagonals. </li><li> Bishops lose two attack lines, so they get to capture (but not move without capturing) narrowly forward as Rhinos. </li><li> Knights need four attack squares replaced, and they should be color changing, so they get to capture but not move without capturing as a forward or sideways Wazir. </li></ul> Would that balance it? Another approach, but a very different game use a vertically cyclindrical board of 8x14, a line of Pawns on either side of the pieces, and have both armies consider forward the same direction. PBA

JCL wrote on Fri, Mar 29, 2002 06:00 PM UTC:

How about Syncretic CHess? Another way to think about Feebback Chess is to
enfeeble the pieces when they are toward the back of the board (i.e. closer
to their first rank). This could be done by laming or spaciousing
(whatever, this is a concept, not a finished product). BUT, the pieces
would regain their normal powers as they approached the far rank. AND, you
could lift an idea from M-Chess, and give them different augmentors
depending on what ranks they stand on, perhaps leftward augmentors on
righthand columns, etc. THEN, you could make it Archoniclastic, augmenting
pieces depending on what color square they stand on. AND THEN, you could
apply this to Peter Aronson's Chess with Cyclical Armies! AND AFTER THAT,
you could work on the hex version for three players!! ('Basingstoke, John')
Ahh, yes. Basingstoke it is. --JCL

gnohmon wrote on Fri, Mar 29, 2002 06:00 PM UTC:

<hr>I think your ideas for Feebback Chess are excellent. It is interesting to think how, when playing a non-Feebback army against a Feebback one, one could cause havoc by getting behind and backstabbing. However, for the Feebback army to be competitive, its forward powers would have to be heavily enhanced. -- gnohmon <hr>

PBA wrote on Fri, Mar 29, 2002 05:00 PM UTC:

Of the standard CDA Armies, the one that I suspect would gain the most from being augmented is the Colorbound Clobberers, since it has four colorbound pieces per side to benefit from being made colorfree (the opposite of colorbound, of course). Dragging the Feebback thread here so that poor David Short isn't left wondering just what this has to do with Spinal Tap Chess, I can see a number of forms Feebback Chess (but what JCL was talking about is Feeback Chess, another think entirely of course). First, we have the Feebback Chess where pieces move back weakly. One form of it is where pieces can not capture when moving backwards. This is interesting in its effects, since Kings and Queens lose 3/8 of their capturing power, Rooks 1/4, Bishops and Knights 1/2, and Pawns are not effected at all. I suspect that this would make promotions easier, since the back rank would have to be guarded from the back rank. Another form could have backward movements be Lame, so that all backward leaps are lame, and all backward steps and slide are spacious. I don't know if leap riders (Nightriders, Dabbabahriders, etc.) would be both lame and spacious. Both this and the previous variant could probably be applied to Different Armies. Another interpetation of 'Feebback' would be to move the Pawns to the 3rd and 6th ranks (no double-move or en-passant), the pieces to the 2nd and 7th ranks, and to fill the back ranks with Feebs. Feebs only move one square straight forward without capturing, may be captured by either side, may be captured by Pawns moving forward, and promote on the last rank to Knight, Bishop or Rook (or in CDA to the pieces that occupy the equivalent positions). There, I've taken this far too seriously, so I'd better go . . .

gnohmon wrote on Wed, Mar 27, 2002 05:00 PM UTC:

<HR>I had forgotten that the published Augmented Chess speaks only of augmenting the FIDE army. In principle, augmenting equivalent armies should give equivalent augmented armies; I have not looked for specific exceptions. I like the Crybaby, and of course the Crabinal has been kicking around for a while; and either can of course be augmented by Langskip. It may be that in Archoniclastic Chess colorbound pieces are at a disadvantage; but my thought was that by having the augmented version also be colorbound, the disadvantage is removed or at least reduced. Consider the Knight augmented to NW: half the time it is augmented, and half the time it is not. Its average is fifty percent, and the average of the Bishop augmented to BD is also 50% because one of them is never augmented and the other always is. The N/NW has the option of posting itself so that both pieces are augmented, but also has the disadvantage that both could be chased into unaugmented positions. Also, the weaker Bishop, the one that can never be augmented, has the advantage that it controls the squares on which the opponent's augmented pieces can be found -- a new type of levelling effect. Therefore it seemed to me that colorbound pieces in Archoniclastic Chess had a special interest that would make it more fun if they're in the game. -- gnohmon<HR>

PBA wrote on Wed, Mar 27, 2002 04:00 PM UTC:

This article is talking as if Augmented Chess was based on augmenting Different Armies, with its question of how do you augment a BD or a FAD, but the published version of Augmented Chess is based on augmenting the FIDE army. It seems to me that the only colorbound piece that needs to be augmented is the Bishop, which is an interesting issue still. The interesting thing about augmenting the Bishop in this variant is that while you can give a colorbound augmentation to it (producing, say, a BD), that only helps one of them -- the one on the opposite color will never be augmented. This might be OK, as it yields a weak piece, and weak pieces can be useful and interesting, since you can threaten trades (is an Archoniclastic NW/N worth more or less than a Bishop?). Alternatively, as Augmented Chess offers alternate Knights and Queens, alternate Bishops could be offered. What sort of alternate Bishops? You want Bishop replacements that: <ul> <li>Are not colorbound;</li> <li>Are worth almost the same as a Bishop;</li> <li>And feel something like a Bishop to play with.</li> </ul> That's a tall order. I have a couple of unscientific proposals: <blockquote> <h4>The Crybaby (WAA)</h4> Sort of a super-Waffle, the difference between A and AA is probably small enough to account for the difference between a Waffle and a Bishop, and it moves sort of Waffle-like. <h4>The Crabinal (ffNbsNhhB)</h4> It's bishop-like and not colorbound, but it is hard to augment, since of the original augmentors, only the W and the D work with it. </blockquote> An alternative approach would be to render Bishops not-colorbound by using Kristensen Bishops (mfbWB). But this makes Bishops clearly more powerful than Knights, which is very likely undesirable. Well, I've chattered on enough for now . . . PBA

gnohmon wrote on Wed, Mar 27, 2002 03:00 PM UTC:

<HR> On a 10x10 board, the forwardmost (1,3) jump is not so dangerous, as you suggest. The real problem with the 10x10 board is that I do all my analysis and playtesting blindfold, and the chessboard in my head is only 8x8. For this reason, I give only small amounts of attention to other board sizes. If you really want to do some heavy 10x10 work, run the numbers through my methods for estimating the whole-game mobility of Knigh and Rook and Rhino and so forth, then make some different armies! However, I did find one problem with Chess on a Really Big Board -- Pawns are funny. Pawns might be okay on 10x10, but I don't think I really answered the question of what Pawns should be on 16x16. Just a random grist for the mill.....-- gnohmon<HR>

PBA wrote on Tue, Mar 26, 2002 03:00 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★

The world obviously needs more Augmented Chess variants! I wonder, though, if moving this to a 10x10 board where Camels/Long Knights (and maybe (3,3) leapers) are not out of place would allow a more natural selection of Augmenters. PBA

Danadazo. Game played on the 47 edges of a grid with rounded corners, borrowing elements from Tafl. (Cells: 47) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]

PBA wrote on Tue, Mar 26, 2002 12:00 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★

I do like the idea of playing on edges as opposed to points or cells. It really does give a different topology. PBA

JCL wrote on Wed, Mar 27, 2002 12:00 AM UTC:

Speaking of different topologies, I could swear I once came across a
variant where the position of a piece within a square had an effect on its
state or capabilities, but I have, perhaps mercifully, forgotten everything
about it that might enable me to track it down. --JCL

Alice Chess. Classic Variant where pieces switch between two boards whenever they move. (2x(8x8), Cells: 128) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]

JCL wrote on Fri, Mar 29, 2002 07:40 PM UTC:

Daniel, do you realize that the site icon in the upper left-hand corner
takes you to the index page? I have visited regularly for years, so I have
the 'What's new?' page bookmarked. --JCL

Daniel wrote on Fri, Mar 29, 2002 07:30 PM UTC:Good ★★★★

Make your pages have a 'printer option!' That way I could take your data
home with me and actually use it!! Also, put a 'home' buttin at the
bottom
of each page, it would make site navigation easier... Thanks, Daniel

Chessgi. Drop the pieces you take from your opponent. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]

Chad wrote on Tue, Apr 2, 2002 08:33 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★

You can play this game at <a href='http://www.goldtoken.com'>GoldToken.com</a>.

General Comments Page. Page for making general comments.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]

Tony Quintanilla wrote on Tue, Apr 2, 2002 09:53 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★

David, Peter, great idea! This makes it easy to comment, is practical, timely, and should have a wide audience.

Peter Aronson wrote on Tue, Apr 2, 2002 11:12 PM UTC:

It seems to me that Ruddigore Chess actually seems playable! But I would suggest that the first three turns be declared a Bank Holiday with no capturing required.

Tony Quintanilla wrote on Wed, Apr 3, 2002 04:55 AM UTC:

David, will this page be linked to the side bar somehow? That would help in the future when it is not longer the new item in the Feedback page.

Chaturanga 4-84. An Updating of Chaturanga for Four Players with modern pieces and an 84-square board. (10x10, Cells: 84) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]

Tony Quintanilla wrote on Wed, Apr 3, 2002 05:09 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★

Very nice game. It is highly playable. Very enjoyable. The double teams
interact in a cooperative way. The board is interesting to play on,
especially with the center squares which change your piece types.
   Although the game harkens back to Chaturanga, even the 4-player version
of Chaturanga, and other 4-player games, there is a lot on ingenuity here.
The idea of changing piece type in the center adds some of the ancient
flavor too. The double team environment in-itself adds a new element in
many ways.
   The rules are simple to grasp. Traditional chess moves are used, along
with the ancient moves in the center. The center, of course, alludes to the
traditional struggle in chess to capture the center.
The game is very nice. By that I mean that it is graceful and evocative.
   Nice game. Try it!

General Comments Page. Page for making general comments.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]

gnohmon wrote on Wed, Apr 3, 2002 05:30 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★

If you think Ruddigore Chess seems playable, by all means test a bit more
and write it up! You're the inventor. I just blathered away with a crude
sketch of the rules and a crazy suggestion, you saw the possibilities and
found the specific rule-set that makes it work -- in other words, you do
all the hard work, it's your game.
<P>
You'll mention me, of course, but you know I would never have pursued the
idea further...

Grid Chess. Always move to a different 2 by 2 square part of the board. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]

gnohmon wrote on Wed, Apr 3, 2002 05:47 AM UTC:

Pinwheel Chess was invented early 1970s by me, in NOST/Algia.

The idea is, it's grid chess, but each grid rotates 1/4 turn after each move; and alternate grids rotate backwards -- e.g. a1 goes to a2, and c2 goes to c1.

I wrote the program that displays the board and lets 2 people play, more than once, in different languages. Long lost, of course, even if you could find compilers/interpreters for those languages.

Orbital Rotating Grid Chess is like Pinwheel Chess except that e4,e5,d4,d5 is one cell, (so far just as in Offset Grid Chess, but...) and the other squares in c4-f6 are another cell, and the remaining squares in b2-g7 another, and the remaining squares in a1-h8 (in other words, the 28 edge squares) are another cell. And they rotate in opposite directions. Chaos!

Knight's Tour Rotating Grid Chess, not the right name, but you take a Knight's tour, and each turn the pieces on a1 move to b3 and the pieces on c2 get transferred to a1, and so forth

And finally, Brownian Motion Chess, where the squares are randomly inserted into a linked list, unknown to the players, and each turn everything moves forward on the list one step.

All that was from just one of my densely-typed two page articles in N/A in early 1970s.

I have all the back issues, and some other stuff, packed in a box to send them away, but I never get around to doing it. So nag me.

Critique: Pinwheel could be played postal, which was the only mode back then, but you'd be crazy to try. Both pinwheel and Orbital should be playable (and even fun!) in a noncompetitive online situation.

Knight's Tour is just an over-the-top thingy all us CV designers like to do, and Brownian Motion is over-the-over-the-topmost.

--
gnohmon

Chaturanga 4-84. An Updating of Chaturanga for Four Players with modern pieces and an 84-square board. (10x10, Cells: 84) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]

gnohmon wrote on Wed, Apr 3, 2002 05:53 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★

I have no idea whether or not it's really playable, but judging purely by
the text, the number of ingredients in the recipes, and the quality and
amount of spices, I would have to guess that this is a very fine piece of
work.

Applause.

General Comments Page. Page for making general comments.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]

Peter Aronson wrote on Wed, Apr 3, 2002 06:39 AM UTC:

I'll add Ruddigore Chess to my 'to do' list, but since that's already 1.83 miles long, don't expect it this quarter. But I will almost certainly write a Zillions Rules File for it, and bully poor Tony Quintanilla into playing it with me by e-mail so I can see if it works or not before publishing. Someday. (I realize I don't need Zillions to play the game by e-mail, but it makes it more convenient and enforces rules that might get missed. Also, I find programming a game a good way to examine a game's rules in details.)

John Lawson wrote on Wed, Apr 3, 2002 06:54 AM UTC:

So, given the amount of chatter about Chatter Chess and Ruddigore Chess and
so on, do we need 'virtual' comment pages so we can discuss variants that
haven't actually been posted?  Then, going forward, the comments will be
where they belong.  I mean, who's going to think about looking for comments
about Ruddigore Chess attached to the Archoniclastic Chess page?

Also, to David, I like the little subtle link to the recent comments at the
top of the What's New page, but I don't think in GMT.  Maybe we could
include the current time in GMT, or the time elapsed since the last
comment, or something like that.

Xiangqi: Chinese Chess. Links and rules for Xiangqi (Chinese Chess). (9x10, Cells: 90) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]

willem wrote on Wed, Apr 3, 2002 07:07 AM UTC:Good ★★★★

Chaturanga 4-84. An Updating of Chaturanga for Four Players with modern pieces and an 84-square board. (10x10, Cells: 84) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]

John Lawson wrote on Wed, Apr 3, 2002 07:26 AM UTC:

Peter, I've recently been playing Grand Camelot in another venue.  Grand
Camelot is a four-player version of Parker Brothers Camelot game.  (To the
peanut gallery: Yes, I know it's not a chess variant; let me finish.)  

Grand Camelot has two unusual features for a four-player game:
1 - Partners sit side by side.  Translating to this game, Red and Green
would be partners against Yellow and Black.
2 - The turn sequence is a 'figure-8'.  Translated to Chaturanga 4-84, that
would be Red - Yellow - Green - Black (repeat)

This small change works surprisingly well, and I've wondered if it would be
as successful in a 4-player CV like this.  I generally find 4-player
abstract strategy board games annoying, but Grand Camelot is lots of fun
and very exciting.

Also, the comment about the ZRF being double-dummy brought an idea to mind.
 Has there been a CV (e.g. Bridge Chess or Whist Chess) where the players
bid to achieve a certain outcome?  The partner of the 'declarer' sits out,
and the defenders play without communication.  This might be a possible
thing to design.  One could even play a Feeback version with ones
physician, attorney, and accountant.

31 comments displayed

⇧Earliest ⇧Earlier ⇧Reverse Order⇩ Later⇧ Latest⇩

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.