Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

~~Later~~ ⇩Reverse Order⇧ ~~Earlier~~

I'm a Wazir, Get Me Out of Here. A variant in which pieces disappear if left too long in the wrong place. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]

💡📝Charles Gilman wrote on Thu, Mar 8, 2012 06:52 AM UTC:

This variant is safe because it has an implementation. It is not very chesslike by the criteria discussed on another current thread - it has terrain, few piece types, and no royal piece - and it is driven by its theme, but someone liked it enough to implement it.
	Of course I'm always glad when I produce a variant that others like, but I do feel that I've achieved it rather without trying in this case. I put a lot less thought and effort into this variant than I did my more recent variants, or even others of the same year. It was also less well worded than my usual standard, until I had constructive criticism to respond to. I will not however be modifying the array diagram to mark the terrain.
	How many people actually know the origins of the title? Ir was whipped off the page very quickly. Substituting the name of a chessman for 'celebrity' is not in itself very witty. Why use a Wazir? Why not a Knight, or a Steward, or a Silvergeneral? It began as a pun on the name of a terrorist leader. Do you still like it so much? Hopefully it won't put you off the game itself.

Jörg Knappen wrote on Tue, Mar 6, 2012 10:00 AM UTC:Good ★★★★

This is a good game: It is fun to play. I even like the name showing some humour.

Since Charles suggested elsewhere to drop or change this game: please let it stand here as it is. It even inspired another game (I'm a Ferz, get me into there).

All in all, this game has well thought 'game mechanics' and is worth keeping.

Nicholas Wolff wrote on Thu, Feb 4, 2010 09:17 PM UTC:

Just as I suspected. Thanks, again!

💡📝Charles Gilman wrote on Thu, Feb 4, 2010 06:39 PM UTC:

He may have unwittingly missed the crucial word 'enemy's'. I started a game with him some time ago but do not recall finishing it. I would hope that the winner is the player with Wazirs.

Nicholas Wolff wrote on Thu, Feb 4, 2010 06:28 AM UTC:

Another quick question:

According to the rules: 'The winner is the first player to end a move as the only player with Wazirs.' which leads me to believe that the player who loses all of their wazirs first loses.

According to the preset created by Jeremy Good: 'Game composed of just wazirs and pawns. Wazirs, prone to special disappearing rule. Object : Get rid of your wazirs.'  Meaning that you win by losing all of YOUR wazirs.

Is Jeremy's preset one of his variant variants?  Or is there an inconsistency between the rules?  Thanks!

-Nick

💡📝Charles Gilman wrote on Thu, Jan 14, 2010 06:50 PM UTC:

Yes, you are correct.

Nicholas Wolff wrote on Thu, Jan 14, 2010 09:11 AM UTC:

I think I understand it.  Just to be on the safe side:

A wazir who moves into the zone can survive for 5 complete turns.
So, if he moves into the zone, the first half turn would consist of the opponents turn. 
This means that if he does not move out of the zone by the 5th turn made by you, he is gone.
A wazir that leaves the zone and re-enters starts with a fresh count.  

Is this correct?  Thanks for the clarification, Charles.

💡📝Charles Gilman wrote on Wed, Jan 13, 2010 07:35 AM UTC:

I have rewritten the rules to be clearer, and the notes to be more consistent with them. Please let me know if this leaves any issue unaddressed.

💡📝Charles Gilman wrote on Mon, Jan 11, 2010 07:22 AM UTC:

You've identified an inconsistency between the rules and the notes, and I'm going to have to edit it to fix this. Hopefully my update will answer all your questions.

Nicholas Wolff wrote on Sun, Jan 10, 2010 05:48 AM UTC:

I have a question about the central region. If a wazir moves into there but stays put, does the countdown still happen each turn? At what point does the countdown start (the turn the wazir enters or the turn after)? If a Wazir enters, spends a few turns in there, exits and re-enters, does it retain that amount of turns, or does it start over? Thanks!

Charles Gilman wrote on Wed, Dec 3, 2008 07:37 AM UTC:

The player still having one or more Wazirs wins and the one without loses.

John Smith wrote on Wed, Dec 3, 2008 05:29 AM UTC:

The rules seem to contradict the preset. Is it a win or loss when you have no Wazirs?

Charles Gilman wrote on Tue, Jun 6, 2006 06:00 AM UTC:

Thanks for pointing this out. I have now fixed the ambiguity.

Jeremy Good wrote on Mon, Jun 5, 2006 02:05 PM UTC:

Charles, your use of the phrase 'double move' to connote two entirely different things in adjacent sentences potentially leads to confusion.

You won't mind, I presume, if I change the phrase, 'Pawns inherit the FIDE double move...' to read, 'FIDE initial two step move...'?

We might then leave the next sentence intact or optionally substitute 'A wazir spending five turns...' for 'A Wazir spending five double moves...'

Please let me know whether you would approve either or perhaps both of these minor editorial changes.

Charles Gilman wrote on Fri, Jan 20, 2006 08:27 AM UTC:

My mistake, the confusion arose from:
(a) a Wazir being a minor piece against a FIDE King - but of course that
depends on the King's extra ability to move diagonally;
(b) Xiang Qi's nearest analogy, a promoted Soldier trapping a bared
General in the Fortress, being stalemate - but again where captures get
carried out there is no stalemate.
I will get on with editing to express things more vaguely.

Christine Bagley-Jones wrote on Thu, Jan 19, 2006 10:45 PM UTC:

hmm interesting and unusual sounding game, funny name :)

J Andrew Lipscomb wrote on Thu, Jan 19, 2006 03:25 PM UTC:

Actually, on a plain 8-by-8 board, the Wazir with the opposition can force victory by simply closing in on each move and eventually cornering its foe. This may not be true on the board at hand, though; there is a possibility that the defender could thwart that plan by making proper use of the quicksand center region.

17 comments displayed

~~Later~~ ⇩Reverse Order⇧ ~~Earlier~~

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.