[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ][ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ][ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]Comments/Ratings for a Single Item Later ⇩Reverse Order⇧ Earlier 2 Queen Rocky Horror Lycanthropic Chess. Featuring pieces that automatically flip into wyrd and not so strange counterparts. (10x8, Cells: 68) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Jeremy Good wrote on 2014-11-02 UTCTo John Smith: I've finally figured out how to answer your question. If a Cylindrical Bishop goes to an x or y square it acts normally and not cylindrically. The board shall be regarded as cylindrical only in an 8 x 8 way while seeming to exclude the unusual corner squares (which still exist, just not in cylindrical space). I've updated the rules to reflect this. Thank you for bringing attention to this formerly unaddressed problem. Jeremy Good wrote on 2014-08-30 UTCHi John. Yes. Edit... Afterthought: Yes but in a way no, because at some point it will have transformed in the process of moving - hence it will never actually have been a wuss in check. John Smith wrote on 2010-01-16 UTCCan a Wuss move into check and become a Mamra because it moved and was not originally checked? Jeremy Good wrote on 2010-01-01 UTCJohn, thank you. I hadn't been thinking about this problem. I think you may have a very good point and I'm not sure yet how to address it. Regards. John Smith wrote on 2009-12-31 UTChttp://play.chessvariants.org/pbm/play.php?game=2+Queen+Rocky+Horror+Lycanthropic+Chess&log=sissa-ultimatecoolster-2009-337-933 Jeremy, there seems to be a problem regarding the cylindrical nature of the board and the corner squares. If one moves a Cylindrical Bishop in the direction of a corner, as it is in one square of the corner, the square loops diagonally to the square one removed from the opposite corner of the same rank, e.g. a7 loops to h8. However, the visually proceeding square is just the corner, e.g. x8. Does this mean it can move to both h8 and x8? Or only h8, or only x8? Or do they become the same square, causing the board to fold into itself and create a wormhole? When I visualize Cylindrical Chess, the left file usually orthogonally corresponds to the right file. However, in Rocky Horror Chess (if that's an acceptable short form), this would imply the adjacency of the corner squares and squareless spaces along the rest of the files. Jeremy Good wrote on 2009-11-27 UTCHi John, thanks for the question. Yes, if there are no other transvestites or werewolves, capturing the last transvestite (as queen) satisfies a winning condition. John Smith wrote on 2009-11-27 UTCIf you only have one Transvestite and its facet is Queen, you still lose if it is captured, right? Jeremy Good wrote on 2009-10-17 UTCSam, okay, yes, I've gone and done it (with a little help from Antoine Fourriere). I've created a preset for this game! All pieces except Transvestites and Werewolves convert automatically (because of special checking or capturing rules which I don't know how to enforce in the programming). Here I mention how to use the notation to convert these pieces. Sam Trenholme wrote on 2009-10-16 UTCHey, that looks really good! I like how you finished up the rules. Now, when you get time, you may want to set up a game courier preset; please explain to those of us not not very familiar with Game Courier how to make moves that flip the pieces. This game can be played with a real board using checkers with pictures of the piece on each side of each checker. Jeremy Good wrote on 2009-10-16 UTCIt seems I rushed to publish and will be eating a bit more crow soon. A couple of good revisions on their way based on feedback from Sam Trenholme and Nicholas Wolff. Thanks for your help, guys! :) Updated: See section on pieces for Wuss and Mamra, King and Queen and see notes at bottom for acknowledgements. See also revised checkmating rules under rules section. Sam Trenholme wrote on 2009-10-16 UTCThe way I like to handle royalty is to have it so, if we have multiple royal pieces, checkmating any of the pieces (or forking two or more of the royal pieces) is a win. I like doing it this way because, in a chess variant, it’s important to make attack strong and defense weak so the game is not too drawish. Then again, with an “iron” (non-capturable) piece that can transform in to a form that moves like a Queen, this may not be an issue. Jeff Mallett seems to agree with me; in Zillions of Games, it’s somewhat difficult to program a variant with multiple royal pieces where the goal is to capture all of them (you need to add complex rules where the royal piece is off of the board until the player is at their last royal piece, at which point you put it on the board), but simple to program it so capturing any of the royal pieces win (just change the setup to put multiple kings on the board). And oh, to be a pedantic Sheldon, while there is a transvestite in The Rocky Horror Picture Show, there is no werewolf. :) While I’m being pedantic, pieces that change their move after being moved have been done before. This change was optional in Flip Chess/Shogi, and flipping is mandatory after every move in the 1976 game Kyoto Shogi (Wikipedia link which will work as long as some deletionist twit doesn’t succeed in deleting the article) And, of course, there’s all the variants with rotating pieces out there; to the extent of my knowledge, the first variant with rotating chess pieces was Ploy, and, like Warlock chess, you lose a tempo when you rotate a piece (newer rotating variants have it so you rotate after moving the piece). Warlock looks to be new in the sense that the piece changes its nature that’s not merely rotating at the cost of a tempo. Jeremy Good wrote on 2009-10-16 UTCNicholas, great questions! And thanks for the compliment! My answer to Sam and updating of the rules should make the second set of questions clear. Please go back and have another look at my rules as I've updated them to wipe out the massive loophole both you and Sam pointed out to me. I also updated the notes a bit. Also, look at the notes. I will try to answer your questions more thoroughly than necessary here though. 1) Were you doing this because I like Mamra Chess with Wuss so much? Well, you were definitely a big part of the mix. This new variant was conceptualized in part because of how facilely you keep beating me at this other game. For me, lots of playtesting is central to inventing. Hopefully you will beat me less easily in this new one yet like it even more! :) [I deleted the rest of this post because Nicholas's reflections ultimately led to a rule change after further consultation with him. Thanks, Nicholas.] Jeremy Good wrote on 2009-10-16 UTC Thanks for taking time to look over my variant, Sam, and of course I appreciate your feedback too. Certainly you propose valid variants in their own. Your idea about a checked piece not being allowed to transform is especially worthy of experimentation! ;) You also indicate one serious lacuna in the rules which I shall now attempt to remedy. An extra rule had been in there before but then I thought erroneously I'd already eliminated the loophole. You helped me realize there is too much ambiguity without it. What I should have preserved was the rule that you must have either a queen, mamra, king or wuss at all times or you've lost. So I shall now point out the another way a win can be effectuated by stating the same thing differently in the rules. I will quibble with you just a bit from the Department of 'Many Ways to Skin a Cat'. Games with supernumerary royal pieces address the issue of checkmate successfully in different ways, each one having its own flavor. Some allow you to capture one before checkmating the other; some are not so merciful. Here I have potentially more than four royal pieces (if pawns promotes to a queen or mamra, there can be more) and to deal with that curious situation, I steal some flavorful ideas from Dan Troyka's Wuss and from Abdul Rahman-Sibahi's Kings. In Mamra Chess with Wuss there are two royal pieces and four ways to win (perhaps you might say five if you include checking simultaneously king and wuss). It is not necessary to checkmate both kings in Mamra Chess with Wuss (likewise here). It's only necessary to checkmate one and usually that one is the Wuss because the Wuss, even though it can move like a queen, is generally easier to checkmate. The Wuss is so relatively easy to checkmate in fact that I thought the game itself would have more punch and vibrancy if I allowed it to transform instead of always remaining a Wuss. Enter the Werewolf. That is also in keeping with the theme of this game which welds the most powerful pieces to the most weakening pieces (queen to king). The Mamra, more powerful than the Queen, is hybrided to the Wuss, which is more weakening than the King. Sam Trenholme wrote on 2009-10-15 UTCThere are two possible solutions to the “no royal pieces” problem:If you transform the pieces so you have no royal pieces on the board, you instantly loseIf you have only one royal piece on the board, the other piece is unable to transformAs for the Wuss-Mamra transformation, I think it makes sense that you can’t transform the piece if its compelled to move because the opponent threatens it. Sam Trenholme wrote on 2009-10-15 UTCsee above Nicholas Wolff wrote on 2009-10-15 UTCVery nice looking variant, Jeremy. Were you doing this because I like Mamra Chess with Wuss so much? A couple of questions: -At what point does the pieces transform? For instance, if I check a Wuss, he is obligated to move to get out of it. Is it legal for him to move to another space that he is in check and then transform into a Mamra? Or do they transform after the players turn has ended? -What happens if a player makes it so there are no kings/wusses on the board? (ex. moves his king to turn into queen and moves wuss to turn into mamra). Is this legal? If so, is there an alternate way of winning? Maybe I didn't catch it. Again, nice looking variant and I look forwards to playing it in the 'world tour' :) 16 comments displayedLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ EarlierPermalink to the exact comments currently displayed.