Check out Glinski's Hexagonal Chess, our featured variant for May, 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 Earlier
Shatranj Kamil X. Shatranj Kamil, with new pieces from Jetan, Shogi and Xiangqi. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
H. G. Muller wrote on Sat, Apr 15, 2023 04:29 PM UTC in reply to David Paulowich from Fri Apr 14 08:09 PM:

A Knight and a single Alibaba can also force mate, if the bare King is already close enough to the corner that the Alibaba can reach. Longest mate takes 35 moves (on 8x8).


💡📝David Paulowich wrote on Fri, Apr 14, 2023 08:09 PM UTC:

Nowadays I am concentrating on games where stalemate is a draw and checkmate is required for victory. We know that a Bishop and a Knight are sufficient mating material. We also know that the lone King must first be chased to one of the two corners that this Bishop is capable of attacking. Today I am going to replace the Bishop with a pair of Elephants from Shatranj Kamil X - moving like the Padwar in Jetan - as strictly interpreted.

diagram

WHITE: King (c5), Elephants (g5, h6), Knight (h8) BLACK: King (e8)

WHITE mates in 12 moves:

1. Kc6 Kd8 2. Nf7+ Kc8 3. Ee5 Kb8 4. Ec5 K moves 5. Ef6 Kb8

6. Ne5 K moves 7.Kb6 Kb8 8. Ka6 K moves 9. Ea7 Kb8 10. Nd7+ K moves 11. Nb6+ Kb8 12. Ed6 mate.

NOTES: If 2... Ke8 3.Nd6+ Kd8 4. Ef8 mate. If the Elephants are replaced by (AmD) from Shatranj Kamil (64) - then 4. Ef6 mates and the main line is two moves longer (changes starting with move six below).

6. Ng5 K moves 7. Nh7 Kb8 8. Nf8 K moves 9.Kb6 Kb8 10. Ee5 K moves 11. Ka6 Kb8

Observe how the last ten moves have shifted every piece two squares to White's left.

12. Nd7+ K moves 13. Nb6+ Kb8 14. Ed6 mate.

MORE NOTES: When a lone King is trapped on the edge of the board - - then King, Knight and a pair of Elephants (on the same color squares, a Ferz move apart) can force checkmate, even if they happen to chase the King to the "wrong corner". I will let the computers decide if these four pieces are sufficient mating material on 8x8 or 9x9 or 10x10 boards, no matter where the lone King starts.


Greg Strong wrote on Sun, Aug 2, 2020 11:02 PM UTC:

Interactive diagram added to page.

It rules stalemate a win, as it should, but does not contain the additional rule that stalemate is a draw when you are stalemating with only a lone king.  But I agree with H.G. that this is an unnecessary rule:

The Diagram would not make the exception that stalemating with a lone King is a draw. But this seems a silly rule anyway. The only practical case I know where a bare King delivers stalemate is in defending against promotion of a Rook Pawn, preventing the supporting King to step away from the edge. But that only works if the strong side chooses to stalemate himsef by pushing the Pawn. You cannot force him to do that. The rule is as pointless as an extra rule that a checkmate in KNNK would count as a draw in orthoChess.

I did add this rule to the Game Courier preset for completeness but I am not concerned that the diagram doesn't do it.


Greg Strong wrote on Fri, Jul 24, 2020 06:46 PM UTC:

I cleaned up the HTML, replaced the board image with one generated by the diagram designer, and added more up-to-date information about computer play options. I didn't add an interactive diagram yet, because there is stuff I'd need to figure out, (like how to make the Ferz promote), but would like to do so. If someone wants to whip up a working diagram I'll include it.

Interesting note: I was unable to edit this page through the user-interface because the form that is embedded in the Notes section interferes with the edit submission form. I'm not sure what code to add to isolate the form so it doesn't interfere. For now, in order to change this page, it is necessary to first go into SQL and wipe out the contents of the Notes section (preserve it first!).


Joe Joyce wrote on Thu, Apr 19, 2007 06:22 PM UTC:
A thought-provoking comment, Mats, so I did some looking. XiangQi has 32 pieces on 90 points, for a 36% starting piece density. Shatranj Kamil X has 44 pieces on 100 squares, 44% starting density, so it is more crowded, with about 25% more pieces on board, and the SKX cannons are behind all the other pieces - plus to XQ. But the board has 1 more file [11% increase] for the 2 cannons to operate on, which mitigates this a bit - plus to SKX. Further, while the cannons in XiangQi are forward of the other pieces, they are behind a pawn row that's only 55% filled, and there is no pawn in front of a cannon to start, unlike SKX. To effectively use the cannons in either game requires maneuvering - even. The additional pieces in SKX will give the cannons more opportunities to capture as the game goes on, so they are less effective in the very beginning, but more effective during the game, and their effectiveness lasts much farther into the game, as all agree cannons lose effectiveness in the endgame, where there are so many fewer pieces for them to leap. Also, the larger board favors unlimited sliders over shortrange pieces. In my opinion, the advantage is tilting toward SKX.

M Winther wrote on Thu, Apr 19, 2007 04:14 PM UTC:
In order to know how the Chinese Cannon fares in this congested situation one would need to test this in a Zillions program. The situation is quite different compared with Chinese Chess where there are always open lines. 
/Mats

💡📝David Paulowich wrote on Wed, Mar 14, 2007 04:01 PM UTC:

The Elephant has no brakes, so it cannot stop after moving just one square. Compare this piece with the Chinese Horse, which makes one orthogonal move and then must continue with a second (diagonal) move. Also the [Jesters] link on this page takes you to the King's Court Chess page, which has a diagram for the Jester - Free Padwar - War Elephant.

[2008 EDIT] Added a remark concerning the Chinese Elephant to the Pieces section.


Joe Joyce wrote on Wed, Mar 14, 2007 03:48 PM UTC:
The piece moves like a ferz, then must move like a ferz again [a 'forced 2-step bent ferzrider' ;-) ]. It has 2 limitations: 1 - it cannot capture on the first step of its 2-step move. The first square it moves to *must* be empty. It may only capture on the second step. 2 - it cannot make a null move. It may not move back to its original square.

Abdul-Rahman Sibahi wrote on Wed, Mar 14, 2007 03:38 PM UTC:
I don't quite understand how the Elephant moves in this game. (I read the Pawdar's description, didn't help.)

Joe Joyce wrote on Wed, Mar 14, 2007 12:11 PM UTC:
A very nice-looking game overall, looking forward to playing this one too [and probably losing]. The pieces are an unusual mix, with shortrange predominating. They seem nicely balanced, with what appears to me to be a slight bias for white toward the white squares and black, toward the black. I'm curious to see how the ferz plays out against the 2 lame elephants. Without the cannons, it would be very much an 'open shatranj' feel, but I suspect the cannons will often be used as sacrifices to crack open a defended position; certainly they could speed up the game a bit.

10 comments displayed

Later Reverse Order Earlier

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.