Check out Symmetric Chess, our featured variant for March, 2024.


[ 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 EarlierEarliest
Metamachy. Large game with a variety of regular fairy pieces.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
📝H. G. Muller wrote on Sat, Jul 29, 2023 02:33 PM UTC in reply to Jean-Louis Cazaux from 12:26 PM:

Umm, this is unintended. The ID determines the typical mobility of a piece by generating moves for it on all empty squares of a 25% populated board, for a large number of randomly generated positions. But apparently I put the piece there in a virgin state, so that initial moves are also counted. This is of course not the correct thing to do; initial moves should contribute almost nothing to piece value. Just some positional advantage, which could also be achieved by starting the piece in a different location of the initial setup. I will correct this.

For castling it has no effect, because even if the King is virgin, there usually would be no castling partner available, and even if there is, the castling would usually be blocked by other pieces.

Prince (KfmnnD): 347 (why a double n?)

This is a trick for making the lame move (which in itself could be simply nD) create en-passant rights (so that moves with e mode can capture it on the square it passed through).


💡📝Jean-Louis Cazaux wrote on Sat, Jul 29, 2023 12:26 PM UTC in reply to Jean-Louis Cazaux from 11:53 AM:

I got it: that's the rule of the King's jump that increases the value of the King. Impressive.

For example on a 8x8:

Man (K=WF): 342

King (as in chess, KisO2): 342 (strange, no increase)

Prince (KfmnnD): 347 (why a double n?)

Prince (KfmnD): 347

King (as in Metamachy, w/jump KimAimDimN) 458


💡📝Jean-Louis Cazaux wrote on Sat, Jul 29, 2023 11:53 AM UTC:

@HG: I don't understand the value given to the King by the ID. How to interpret it? What bothers me is that the value of the Prince which moves like a King plus the Pawn's double step, has less value.


🕸Fergus Duniho wrote on Thu, Jun 29, 2023 12:40 AM UTC in reply to Jean-Louis Cazaux from Sun Jun 25 09:14 PM:

So please, put me as the first author if this can solve the editorial problem

If the second author cannot edit a page, that needs to be fixed. I'll look into it.

UPDATE: This is now fixed. You can now edit a page as the second author.


💡📝Jean-Louis Cazaux wrote on Mon, Jun 26, 2023 09:40 PM UTC in reply to H. G. Muller from 08:24 PM:

I'm not sure that inserting move diagrams will be ruining anything, but no I won't do it. Your Int. Diag. does the job. I want to add links to my books talking about Metamachy, to the new ZoG page (thanks to the editor who published it), to other sites which talk about Metamachy.

I am grateful that you created this page. It was a moment of my life when I had lost the habit of coming here.


📝H. G. Muller wrote on Mon, Jun 26, 2023 08:24 PM UTC in reply to Jean-Louis Cazaux from Sun Jun 25 09:14 PM:

Well, obviously I have no moral rights to denying you presenting your own variants; I only created the page because this appeared to be your best and most popular variant (e.g. on Jocly), and at the time there was no page for this at all.

But it breaks my heart, because 'harmonizing' sounds like you want to ruin it by inserting move diagrams, and perhaps use duplicat diagrams of the initial position (one static and one interactive). At least, that is how your other recent articles look.


💡📝Jean-Louis Cazaux wrote on Sun, Jun 25, 2023 09:14 PM UTC in reply to Ben Reiniger from 03:18 PM:

Thank you for this proposal but what I wish to do on this page which presents a game of mine is more than inserting a word or two. I wish to harmonize it as with my other games, inserting references, illustrations, etc.

So please, put me as the first author if this can solve the editorial problem, I don't think that H.G. will oppose. I will not remove H.G.'s personal addition on this page (e.g. the Interactive Diagram).

Thank you


Ben Reiniger wrote on Sun, Jun 25, 2023 03:18 PM UTC in reply to Jean-Louis Cazaux from 06:34 AM:

Drat, I guess member submitted pages don't work with the second author field like I assumed. I might be able to adjust that in the code, but we'd need to talk about whether that could be problematic (for starters, what happens if two authors try to edit at nearly the same time).

In the meantime, I (or H.G.) could swap you and H.G. as first and second authors, if he's fine with that. Or you could send him the requested changes like he suggested earlier.


💡📝Jean-Louis Cazaux wrote on Sun, Jun 25, 2023 06:34 AM UTC in reply to Ben Reiniger from Sat Jun 24 02:26 AM:

Thank you Ben, but no, I can't edit this page yet. I don't see the black box with "As author of this page you may". Can you solve this for me? Thank you


Ben Reiniger wrote on Sat, Jun 24, 2023 02:26 AM UTC:

I added Jean-Louis as the second author earlier this week, so I believe you should be able to use the site scripts to edit it?


📝H. G. Muller wrote on Fri, Jun 23, 2023 01:58 PM UTC in reply to Jean-Louis Cazaux from Mon Jun 19 04:58 PM:

I would like to make some addition to this page. Being the author of this game, may I have the right to edit it? 

If you e-mail me what you want to add I could apply those changes.


💡📝Jean-Louis Cazaux wrote on Mon, Jun 19, 2023 04:58 PM UTC:

I would like to make some addition to this page. Being the author of this game, may I have the right to edit it? Thanks


🕸Fergus Duniho wrote on Fri, Feb 17, 2023 08:02 PM UTC:

Thanks, I updated the year it was invented in the database, and I added a mention of it to the Cannon page.


💡📝Jean-Louis Cazaux wrote on Fri, Feb 17, 2023 07:23 PM UTC in reply to Fergus Duniho from 04:07 PM:

It's a long story. But to make it short you can take 2012 when it has been revealed.


🕸Fergus Duniho wrote on Fri, Feb 17, 2023 04:07 PM UTC:

For our records, what year was Metamachy invented?


Daniel Zacharias wrote on Tue, Dec 29, 2020 10:29 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★

Metamachy is fun. The historical pieces are all interesting to play with, and the fast pawns keep the game from slowing down too much.


📝H. G. Muller wrote on Fri, May 1, 2020 05:34 PM UTC:

The key word here is 'common'. If a variant uses a concept that is unique to it, nothing is gained by moving its description off-page.

Anyway, I'd like to avoid language that use words of contested meaning that are a source of universal confusion. The current phrasing doesn't use any such terms at all, so there is no need to refer to anything for an explanation. Unless the new rule is that we can also no longer say things like "moves dagonally" or "moves like in orthodox Chess", but have to refer to the glossary item for Bishop for that.


🕸Fergus Duniho wrote on Fri, May 1, 2020 03:52 PM UTC:

I think it is a very bad idea anyway to refer to a glossary where the reader has to browse through several items with long and complicated definitions to learn something that could have been said in half a sentence.

For the sake of sharing a common vocabulary and avoiding disputes over the meanings of words on pages for individual games, we're going with the glossary. You are welcome to participate in the project of updating the glossary.


📝H. G. Muller wrote on Fri, May 1, 2020 01:28 PM UTC:

capture zone - n. For a given piece, those squares on which it has the ability to legally capture a piece should the opportunity arise. This may include squares with nothing on them that it may presently capture. What matters is that if an enemy piece did move to a square, the piece could capture it. See threatened.

This is still no good. If the piece was pinned, he could still not legally capture an enemy piece that moved to that square. Unless you consider 'opportunity arises' to also mean "when it doesn't happen to be pinned, and when the that player is not in check". But then it could mean anything, e.g. why not "if there had been no pieces in its path blocking it", or "if it had been on a more suitable square". Involving vague, undefined concepts like 'opportunity' just makes things worse.

The FIDE rules do define 'under attack' as follows:

3.1.2

A piece is said to attack an opponent’s piece if the piece could make a capture on that square according to Articles 3.2 to 3.8.

3.1.3 A piece is considered to attack a square even if this piece is constrained from moving to that square because it would then leave or place the king of its own colour under attack.

It seems the definitions in the glossary have removed the reference to articles 3.2 to 3.8 (which we have to generalize here) and replaced it by the the term 'legally'. This is where the trouble starts, because 'legal move' in the FIDE rules already has a specific meaning (involving check), while what the FIDE rule meant to say here was "would conform to the rules of motion for the individual pieces" (ignoring check, which is only mentioned in 3.9). And we appear to be missing the all-important qualification 3.1.3 in the definition of 'under attack'.

I am not familiar with the term 'capture zone', but it seems you want it to mean "the set of squares that the rules for moving the piece (given the board population elsewhere, but ignoring any check rule) would allow it to capture an enemy on.

Note that the concept 'attack' in the FIDE rules only serves the purpose of formulating the check and castling rule, for which purpose captures that expose their own King are also valid attacks. It is never used in connection with non-royal pieces. This definition of 'attacked' therefore can deviate from the colloquial meaning as used by chess players, who will say things like "my Queen is under attack by a Pawn". It is IMO questionable if they would say that when the Pawn was pinned. But apart from what I think, far more serious is that the FIDE concept of 'attacked' is at odds with the definition in Xiangqi. There the rules do apply the concept 'attacked' to non-royals, in connection with the definition of perpetual chasing. And in this context attack on (or protection of) a non-royal always means "by a fully legal capture (recapture)". 'Attacks' by pinned pieces are not recognized as attacks. (Attacks on the King by pinned pieces are recognized as checks, though.)

Since we run a website for chess variants, I think it would be ill advised adopting a terminology that was exclusively defined in the narrow context of the 'FIDE rules of Chess', but would fail to be useful in other chess variants, amongst which the world's most played variant. FIDE rules should obviously not be binding for us, or the whole concept of a chess variant would be outlawed.

So I think the definition "has a legal capture move to the square when it would have been occupied by an enemy" would be the best definition for 'attacked', with the note that when applied to a royal, every capture would be legal. (Note that the FIDE rules also explicitly point this out when they use the word  'attacked' in 3.9.1 for describing when castling is allowed, while in fact this is redundant, as 3.1.3 already defined 'attacked' in that way!)

It can seem awkward that 'attacked' means something else for a royal then for a non-royal, and that a King would be 'under attack' on the same square where another piece would not be under attack. But in chess variants we have to deal with that problem anyway, as there might be divergent pieces that capture royals in other ways than non-royals. Again Xiangqi comes to mind, where the king attacks the opponent king through a Rook move, but not other pieces. And of course the Ultima Chameleon. It would solve a lot of problems if we distinguished 'attacks a square' (non-royal) from 'checks a square' (royal).

Note that these complications are a result of applying the concept in anticipation of a move, rather than to an actual position. In the latter case it would be obvious whether a legal capture to a given square is possible or not. But for judging legality of castling, it requires several fictions: that it is the opponent's turn, and that you have moved your King to the square in question. Without those fictions, f1 would not be under attack by a Pawn on e2, as 3.7.3 (to which the definition of 'attacked' refers) clearly states that Pawns can only make diagonal moves to squares occupied by an opponent. As we all agree that white castling is not allowed with a black Pawn on e2, we apparently agree that the rule must not be applied to the position before castling, where the Pawn had no move to f1. The FIDE rules do not specify whether the intended fiction (for the "square the King must cross") is that we should imagine (1) the King having moved there, (2) a second royal piece having been placed on that square, (3) a new non-royal piece having been placed on that square. Because in FIDE this doesn't matter. But in other variants it could. E.g. when there is a non-jumping Dababba on d1, it could not capture to f1 after (2) or (3), but it could after (1). I think the natural generalization would be (1): you cannot castle to g1 when you cannot legally move your King to f1.

That brings me to another issue in Metamachy: what if there is a black Cannon on f1, a virgin King on g1 and h1 is empty. Can the King now move to i1? In interpretation (1) it could, as keeping in the direct line of sight of a Cannon never exposes you to capture.

Anyway, while awaiting for you to make a final decision of how or whether to fix the glossary to make it conform to the Metamachy rules, I repaired the damage you had done to the Metamachy article. I think it is a very bad idea anyway to refer to a glossary where the reader has to browse through several items with long and complicated definitions to learn something that could have been said in half a sentence.


🕸Fergus Duniho wrote on Fri, May 1, 2020 02:05 AM UTC:

Regarding this particular edit, the rule has been made less clear.  I interpreted the glossary entry the same way H. G. did, so there is room for improvement.

I never meant that change to be the end of the matter, but I had to think a bit on how to revise the definition for capture zone. I have now revised it to use subjunctives and to explicitly distinguish between ability and opportunity.


Greg Strong wrote on Thu, Apr 30, 2020 10:03 PM UTC:

As editors, we can and do edit content to bring it to a level of quality where we are willing to publish it.  Many of the submissions I review are of very low quality of writing.  They typically suffer from one or more of: poor grammar, poor formatting, inconsistent style, unclear rules.  If I am not sure of the rules, I ask for clarification.  Other edits I will often make myself to bring it up to sufficient quality, at least if I think the game is worthwhile.  It is not practical to engage in all the back-and-forth that would be required point out every mistake or adjustment that needs to be made.

Regarding this particular edit, the rule has been made less clear.  I interpreted the glossary entry the same way H. G. did, so there is room for improvement.

Regarding comments, I am seeing strong, confrontational language that I do not care for from multiple people.  It is essential - indeed required - that an attempt is made to be respectful.  I do not intend to go into details of which comments sepcifically, and by whom.  You all make valuable contributions to this site and I would like to see that continue.  And I understand we all become passionate at times.  But posters must be respectful.  Sometimes we just disagree and sometimes the correct answer, rather than digging in one's heels, is to let it go.  If it continues, I can and will start deleting comments.  Hopefully that will not be necessary.


🕸Fergus Duniho wrote on Thu, Apr 30, 2020 09:05 PM UTC:

I am shocked that you think you are at liberty to mutilate other people's contributions this way.

Since I didn't mutilate your page, you are shocked at something that never happened. But as the webmaster, I am at liberty to make any correction or improvement I see fit to make, and that's what I did.

And capture zone says:

capture zone - n. For a given piece, those squares to which it can legally capture.

This is not at all the case here. For one you cannot capture to a square that is occupied by a friendly piece; such a presence would block the move.

There is a can of opportunity, and there is a can of ability. Suppose you are in an empty room with no reading material of any kind. Can you read? Depending upon which sense of can is used, you can or you can't. You still have the ability to read, but in this circumstance, you don't have the opportunity to use this ability. The same kind of distinction can be made here. You have been focusing on the can of opportunity, but the can that applies here is the can of ability. In this sense, the spaces in the capture zone are those that a given piece has the ability to capture a piece on. Whether a piece has the opportunity to capture a piece on a space is a separate matter from whether it has the ability.

I am willing to tweak the definitions in the glossary, and that's what we can discuss now.


📝H. G. Muller wrote on Thu, Apr 30, 2020 07:12 PM UTC:

Well, that is no good. The glossary says.

attack - ... 2. n. under..... The state of lying within the capture zone of an enemy piece.

And capture zone says:

capture zone - n. For a given piece, those squares to which it can legally capture.

This is not at all the case here. For one you cannot capture to a square that is occupied by a friendly piece; such a presence would block the move. Secondly, a piece that would be pinned to its King would not have a legal capture even on an enemy, as it is illegal to expose your King to check. While the Metamachy rules still forbid the King to jump over such a square. All this was discussed at the hand of examples.

In fact the definitions in the glossary agree exactly with what I have been saying all along, and which I supposedly 'misunderstood' in the description of Zanzibar-XL. It seems that you are the one confused about what the terms mean or what the Metamachy rules are. So in fact you have ruined the article by replacing an exact and concise description of the rules by an indirect reference that gets it wrong.

I am shocked that you think you are at liberty to mutilate other people's contributions this way. Even if I would have written something that was plain wrong, the proper procedure would have been to point out my error and ask me to fix it. Please change it back to how I formulated it!


🕸Fergus Duniho wrote on Thu, Apr 30, 2020 05:25 PM UTC:

I replaced the explanation of "under attack" with a link to the glossary.


💡📝Jean-Louis Cazaux wrote on Wed, Apr 15, 2020 09:34 AM UTC:Good ★★★★

Thanks a lot. I didn't know about Lioness, very good.


25 comments displayed

Later Reverse Order EarlierEarliest

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.