Kibbitz Listing
wrote on After White's 15th turn, Black begins to have problems on his right flank.
wrote on Turn number 12. It's time for rooks.
wrote on Turn number 10. Things become so complicated that it becomes impossible to calculate anything.
wrote on From the sixth turn, bishops come into play.
See the 'action'?
This is mind-blowing! It is almost impossible to cover all connections.
wrote on So, guys, here is the first T5M Chess test game.
wrote on I identified two problems and fixed them both, and after reloading cached files, things seem to be working. The first problem I found was that some non-spaces were misidentified as spaces. I do not know if this mattered, but I fixed it. The second was that the code was not accounting for posdata being undefined at the beginning of the game. This was causing code to stop prematurely when it was undefined.
wrote on I have a position that is allowing one-click moves, and I am trying to figure out how to stop them. This means I keep making and taking back accidental moves. Since this is the first move of the game, and the accidental moves are within my own territory, this is the best time to work on this without gaining additional intelligence.
wrote on This game was closer than my previous games with the same opponent. In all three games, I happened to have a Spy and a Decoy. With this game, I had changed the rules to make the Spy more vulnerable, and I eventually did lose my Spy by capturing a protected piece with it. There were moments when my opponent could have gotten ahead by taking out my Decoy or Rook. While my Decoy did seem to pass for the King for most of the game, I eventually did out it by moving it as a Knight. I kept my last Rook hidden for most of the game by not moving it until it delivered checkmate.
wrote on The icons displayed on the page for Obento Chess GC are of heterogeneous sizes.
wrote on Вам же ясно написали - ходит как Пятнистый Грифон или как ЛАДЬЯ.
wrote on Сударь не мудрите с правилами или используйте переводчик. Вы понимаете что такое полый квадрат? Если нет, обратитесь к картинке в описании правил.
wrote on I can't make a move.
wrote on I have used this two-move opening in CWDA for years. But this time I ignored Ralph Betza's advice to keep the pawn structure locked up, preventing the Black Bishops from dominating the open lines.
My plan was to play 38. CH d2-c4 and capture the Pawn on d4 later, but at the last minute I chose another move. Bad idea! Congrats to the winner.
wrote on Bob:
The pawns in this game are shatranj pawns. They only move 1 square on the first move.
Joe
wrote on Good luck and have fun! I am eager to receive feedback.
Hopefully soon I will be able to used the Mnemonic and Kanji images from the Interactive Diagram for this preset.
wrote on @H.G.: There seems to be something wrong with this game. I'm not sure whether it's my coding or yours, but I'm getting the list of legal moves, and the rifle capture I'm trying to do isn't among them; it's not letting me do my move.
wrote on P.S. to my last comment: forgot to mention your moved bishop can also go between Big Hexes to Da35.
wrote on It has been pointed out that 22...k c6-B5 was the only legal move. In that position the lone White Queen is in danger of running out of checks.
EDIT [May 2023] my original notes here were incorrect.
Planning to run some computer analysis at a later date.
- - - - - -
wrote on Now *there* was a "whoops!"
wrote on Now *there* was a "whoops!"
wrote on Does "Kibbitzing Comments" still work? Matthew La Vallee gave a link to his Game Courier Preset for Mattexperiment 2 at the bottom of this page on 2008-04-05. This 16x16 game (lacking rules) apparently gave each player a Gryphon, two Nightriders and two Roses. Comments by Matthew La Vallee contains one with no subject header dated 2008-04-22 that discusses how a Rose moves.
A little searching turned up presets named Mattexperiment 1d and Mattexperiment 1f. Sad to say, all we have left of his efforts are some pretty pictures.
wrote on Hypothetical situation illustrating how White could anti-checkmate Blue, starting from board position 1 following the sequence 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
1
2
3
4
5
6
wrote on Sorry, Daniel. After submitting my move I found out that the fischer drop is illegal as I am not recapturing your rook. I will have to rectify it.
wrote on Mister Daniel, I have found this preset without enforcement of rules. I believe it to be an inert board, where we may play any move, legal or not. I hope that huffing be possible by vacating the square, therefore we may use it for playing authentic Maidens Chess. Our other game (with enforcement of rules for standard European Chess) we can use for exactly that, standard European Chess. Or if You prefer, we may call it a tied game and erase it. Should we try this one for Maidens Chess, or do You prefer to remove the rule enforcing code of the other and rename it as Maidens Chess, as You kindly had proposed to do ? You decide.
wrote on .
wrote on .
wrote on .
wrote on .
wrote on .
wrote on .
wrote on .
wrote on .
wrote on .
wrote on .
wrote on .
wrote on .
wrote on .
wrote on .
wrote on .
wrote on .
wrote on .
wrote on .
wrote on .
wrote on Oh, I'm sorry. I did try to reply in the comments that go along with the moves. If you look at the move history you should be able to see.
Unfortunately, entering moves by notation is necessary for this game since some pieces have complex moving or capturing abilities. The skirmisher, for example does not capture by replacement, as in your last move, so you can redo that if you'd still like to try this.
wrote on .
wrote on .
wrote on Thanks Joe. Nice to see you playing at Game Courier. Christine is driving the Gray and Green sides while I drive Yellow and Red, following 1 move/player turn with strict color rotation. There appears to be a bug in the GC software that produces on the board diagram the "optical illusion" that we are playing free choice of which color to move each time it's our turn.
wrote on Hi! Nice to see both of you playing! In looking at the board, I see you are using 1 move/player turn, and have free choice of which color to move each time it's your turn. Have you tried 1 move/player turn with strict color rotation? Or 2 moves/player turn, 1 of each of your colors? Enjoy! Joe
wrote on *cannon
wrote on This game was resigned from prematurely. Both sides had captured the same number of pieces, it was still in the mid-game without either side having a serious mating threat, and while my Bishop and Archbishop were probably better than a pair of Mameluks, the board was still too crowded for them to make a decisive difference.
wrote on Actually 36. ... dh j7-e2 is checkmate.
wrote on Hi, gg !
It's my very first game on Game Courier, I wanted to give it a try.
wrote on To rotate a spearman, one must enter the move manually. The positions are found in the 'Available Pieces' (Scroll down, far away from diagram). For example, use 'y' or 'z' as the piece type label, for (in effect) rotating a Black spearman to the left, or to the right. So if a Black spearman is on e3, enter 'y-e3', for instance, to rotate a spearman instead of making a move.
wrote on Hello Paul, ça va ? (je regarde si cette option permet de chatter)
wrote on I just saw your comments. I didn't know it was possible to comment, sorry. Thank you for the game
wrote on Although I am invited, I cannot play, it says This invitation seems to be for someone else.
wrote on For this particular game, it previously said that Bob Dixon had won. When I updated it to restore the position originally used in this game, it changed the winner to Peter Levya. This initially looked correct, because the last comment, which is by the winning Black player, appears to be signed by Peter. But the first two comments are by Peter playing White. My best guess is that the last comment is actually two comments, one from each player, since one line says "Thanks" and the next one says "thank you". In that case, Bob was playing Black and is the actual winner. So, I swapped the values of $player and $opponent in the log and reloaded the log to fix this.
wrote on Hello Jose! What is this variation of Petteia?
wrote on The quintessence or essential nightrider. Every 2 consecutive jumps as a knight is equivalent to one jump as a camel, hence it is said that its axis of development is (3,1) or (1,3).
The following diagram shows an overview of all its possible paths starting from the r18 square.
In the following diagram only the red development is shown, which allows us to better appreciate the two parallel routes that are formed under the same axis.
1. guard --> circle --> guard --> circle --> guard --> etc.
2. wazir --> circle --> wazir --> circle --> wazir --> etc.
wrote on Sorry, the comment was lost. I will try to reset it later.
wrote on You have to manually input promotions
wrote on Knightwazirzee: may move as knight, wazir, one of each or twice as one (knight; wazir; knight + wazir; wazir + knight; knight + knight; or wazir + wazir). The 1's signify that the piece can move to those positions on first move, the 2's signify it takes 2 moves to get to that square.
Let's see some examples in detail.
g7 can be reached by 8 paths:
1) f6-f7-g7
2) f6-g6-g7
3) f6-e8-g7
4) f6-h5-g7
5) f6-g8-g7
6) f6-h7-g7
7) f6-e6-g7
8) f6-f5-g7
h8 can be reached by 4 paths:
1) f6-f7-h8
2) f6-g6-h8
3) f6-g8-h8
4) f6-h7-h8
i9 can be reached by 2 paths only:
1) f6-g8-i9
2) f6-h7-i9
f8 can be reached by 7 paths:
1) f6-f7-f8
2) f6-d7-f8
3) f6-e8-f8
4) f6 h7-f8
5) f6-g8-f8
6) f6-e6-f8
7) f6-g6-f8
g9 can be reached by 4 paths:
1) f6-h7-g9
2) f6-e8-g9
3) f6-g8-g9
4) f6-f7-g9
h10 can be reached only by 1 path as a normal nightrider: f6-g8-h10
wrote on [73. Phx5h] is illegal. Phoenixes cannot move 1 square diagonally.
wrote on Diagram showing the Bottom Heart way of moving. It is a slider that can stop at any of the 4 squares marked in the sequence 1, 2, 3, 4.
The following diagram shows the moves of
and
Crabdabbabah = Crab + Dabbabah.
The different colored circles are just to highlight the two different ways of moving but in both it is possible to capture opposing pieces.
Be careful with the detail that "forward" here means "down" when one sees the icons of the opponent's pieces
wrote on Erratum:
In the phrase "... it's possible that any pawn from 2nd/7th ranks...", instead of 7th I meant 9th.
wrote on There is no bug. All the pawns are accounted for.
wrote on Sente missed a simple mate on move 50.
L@7c Gx7c DK6d-6a K-8a DKx7a
wrote on This should be the last insertion before updating works. I had to retrieve the new primary key after an insertion.
Now to update for real.
That didn't work. I made the kibbitzid field visible.
1319 is the KibbitzID number. Will it change or remain the same when I try to update?
It worked after I set a value for $kibbitzid before writing the form.
wrote on This should be the last insertion before updating works. I had to retrieve the new primary key after an insertion.
Now to update for real.
wrote on This should be the last insertion before updating works. I had to retrieve the new primary key after an insertion.
wrote on That last update was still an insertion. I had to change the name of an input field from subjectid to kibbitzid.
Update or Insert?
wrote on That last update was still an insertion. I had to change the name of an input field from subjectid to kibbitzid.
Update or Insert?
wrote on That last update was still an insertion. I had to change the name of an input field from subjectid to kibbitzid.
Update or Insert?
wrote on That last update was still an insertion. I had to change the name of an input field from subjectid to kibbitzid.
Update or Insert?
wrote on That last update was still an insertion. I had to change the name of an input field from subjectid to kibbitzid.
wrote on This is a test Kibbitz comment using editcomment.php.
Attempting to update Kibbitz comment.
Attempting to update for real, since it didn't use the game and log names the first time it created it, which made the first update an insertion.
That last update was also an insertion. This should be a real update now that I have given a value to $row["KibbitzID"] before posting.
wrote on This is a test Kibbitz comment using editcomment.php.
Attempting to update Kibbitz comment.
Attempting to update for real, since it didn't use the game and log names the first time it created it, which made the first update an insertion.
wrote on This is a test Kibbitz comment using editcomment.php.
Attempting to update Kibbitz comment.
wrote on White's move 16.B b1-b2 was illegal. Also Black's move 19... b g8-f7 was illegal.
Is the wording of The Bishops Conversion Rule confusing?
wrote on я не могу сделать ход в партии. нет кнопкти сделать ход
wrote on я не могу сделать ход в партии. нет кнопкти сделать ход
wrote on I would have liked to have castled on move 16, for example, f1-i1, but the preset wouldn't let me.
Does this preset need to be re-programmed? Also, even though I can castle now, it doesn't seem to include all available options for castling.
wrote on Aargh! Talk about hitting the wrong button!
wrote on woops! I typed "end" instead of "won" - my rustiness coming through in the form of faulty commands. Then the preset stopped working and didn't give me the win! Darn!
wrote on Thanks for the game, Carlos.
For future reference, at least for over-the-board tournament standard chess, the rule I believe is that a draw offer can only be accepted upon the very turn that it is offered. Otherwise a fresh draw offer by one of the players is required. I had assumed that this was also the case for Game Courier rules, too, but in any case I'm not opposed to the draw being finalized at this move, in this present game.
Kevin
wrote on Yes, it is checkmate. Thanks to you too, Kevin, for having played. Nicely done!
wrote on How does one accept a Draw here ???
wrote on I had read your comments, Carlos and I took notice :)!
wrote on Yes, the new Ubi-Ubi could be named as cuasi-UU or semi-UU. For now, I will keep calling it with its original name.
If the King could still be in check by the Ubi Ubi if it has just captured any piece, what it means is that the King can not actually capture that piece because it's illegal for it to put itself in check.
I did not understand your last question. Could you please clarify it a bit. To improve what?
wrote on I think it is a neat rule for such a overpowered piece. But the king could still be in checkmate by the ubi ubi if it has just captured so basically for not very crowded boards the ubi ubi defendes everything. The piece you have invented could very well deserve a new name :)! I usually don't look at kibbitz comments as I don't get notifications for it (I porbably do on email but I barelly use that one). Any idea how to improve on that :)?
wrote on You have answered my questions, Thanks :)!
wrote on Aurelian:
Before moving, let's make some considerations.
This variant is still under construction so we have to make some adjustments on the way. In general, I try to ensure that each and every piece retains (as much as possible) the attributes they have in the games from which they come.
Given that White's Ubi-Ubi (UU) from h1 is checkmating Blue's King by h1-g3-e4-c3-a4-b6-a8, I propose that we make an exception to the PREGAME RULE and try to play starting from this setup modifying slightly the UU's attributes: NON-CAPTURING it will move normally according its move rule states, but it will be able to capture ONLY those pieces that in the immediate previous turn had captured any piece of its own, in other words, UU can make a capture only if this capture is a RE-CAPTURE.
For example, in the following diagram:
If White to move, then UUxe8 (a3-b5-d6-e8) would be illegal; but if Blue to move and makes Rxe3 (Rook x Bishop), then UUxe3 (a3-c4-e3) would be perfectly legal. Under this view, the King will always be immune to checks from UU.
What do you think? Would you agree? Do you have any questions regarding the other pieces?
wrote on There are a number of two-step pieces in the game. They may take both steps of their normal move, but only once. A piece may not make its normal move, 'commanded' by 1 leader, then make a second move, 'commanded' by another leader.
Yes, a leader must be in a section at the start of the turn for a piece in that section to move.
As for the jumping general, I clarified the language. The 2 pieces which together make up the jumping general are the modern versions of the elephant and war machine, not the ancient versions.
Hope this answers all your questions.
wrote on I am a bit confused about the rules of the second game. I think you mean that the leader must stay in that section in order for pieces iin that section to move, but I'm not sure. Also what do you mean by: " No piece may ever be moved twice in one turn ". Aren't the bent shaman and bend here and two others supposed to do just that? Or they do their regular double moves, but not twice the double moves?
wrote on About the article with the rules.
In the pieces section the jumping general does not seem properly described. It should move from what I've got from other of your sources like a king, alfil or dababah, but it seems you forgot the king move which is confusing because later you mention one step move. You have once described an alibaba and the second time an KAD.
I understand from the article bent shaman and bent hero have to use one step and one leap in contrast to the more freer zig zag pieces form Atlantean Barroom Shatranj :)! I like the promotion rules but the [pieces seem overall quite weak :(!
wrote on The piece on e1/e8 is the Ultima's Coordinator. Such an icon belongs to the Alfaerie Pieces Set .
wrote on Ok, strategy reasons :)! I guess I'll find out :)!
I meant the piece on e file. Does it move like a queen and capture like a king?
I'm sorry for writting "f" previously.
wrote on Yes, the first piece to be dropped is the Wazir (from A1/A18) and the first "pawn" is the Camel/Pawn (from S1/S18).
The Camel/Pawn may move like a standard Pawn or like a non-capturing only-forward Camel. Okay? All the 8 Pawns from the starting setup are standard ones so they may make the double step initial move and are subject of being captured en passant. I did not move my "d" Pawn twice for strategy reasons that I can not reveal!
The piece placed on f1/f8 is the most powerful of this setup; it may move and capture like QUEEN and also may move and capture like CAMEL; it is similar to the Amazon; so enjoy it!
wrote on I believe Black's 18th move with a Butterfly capture of a White pawn is illegal. Refer to diagram on preset of how a Butterfly moves.
wrote on Interesting position here. "Fortresses" on the king side. White almost looks like he castled.
wrote on Promotion clarified:
* you may always promote to a 'general', the non-royal king
* you may recover up to 4 LOST pieces through promotion, 1 elephant, 1
knight, 1 rook, and 1 of either the minister or high priestess
* lost pieces may be recovered as soon as the first piece of the pair is
lost as there is no requirement for both pieces in a pair to be lost before
one is returned to the board through pawn promotion.
If you find this understandable and complete (with the original rules-set)
then I will add it to the rules. If you still don't clearly see how
promotion works, comment in-game or in a kibbitz, and we'll get the
language right. And thanks for playing the game. Joe
wrote on Glad to see two of the main supporters of Petteia XXI, battling it out in
the 'City'!
Good luck to both of you!
Jose
wrote on Somehow my first move was declared as not legal by the preset, but I was given the choice to try it anyway.
wrote on 
The Ajax Falcon is NOT a leaper, so just like the Korean Elephant must also have the path clear to reach the 2nd diagonal square (labeled 3 on the diagram), but the Ajax Falcon can also move and capture at any square along the path to their 3rd square.
Therefore the Ajax Falcon can stop on it's 1st diagonal square (labeled 2 on the diagram), provided the first orthogonal step is empty; giving the Ajax Falcon the Korean Horse move capability; or it can just move and capture on it's first orthogonal square (labeled 1 on the diagram) in the path of it's Korean Elephant move, just like a Wazir.
Finally the Ajax Falcon has a one 'non-capturing' step in the remaining diagonal directions (red circles in the diagram), like a Ferz, to complete the one-step movement characteristic of the Ajax pieces.
[Diagram and text taken from Ajax Falcon Chess.]
wrote on Sorry! Suffered a kind of Daltonism at the last comment.
wrote on What 'the attack cannot be blocked' means is that if the Wuss is checked, only the Wuss can move - you cannot use a piece to block it. Makes it a very difficult piece to protect since piece sacs are devastating at times.
wrote on When rule enforcement is added, it should be added to a new preset with a different settings name so existing logs don't break. We then make the new preset the one we advertise so people use it for new games.
wrote on Hello guys,
Thank you for trying my game!
wrote on Hello, guys, and once again, thank you for playing my game. The 12/18 moves rule will be eventually enforced by game courier, what happens with this record then?
wrote on There is a problem with this preset - I'm in checkmate but it's not detected. I tried to enter 'lost' but that is refused as well.
wrote on A bug prevents me from making any move except 9.Qxd2, 9.Nxd2 or 9.Kxd2. On
the screen appears this message:
Syntax Error on line 339
The function fL has not been defined.
wrote on I'm not sure, but this may have been one of the closest, most interesting games of Sac Chess played on Game Courier to date. It partly depends on whether it was very promising for Carlos to open up the centre in the middlegame, as my king was the more insecure one for most of the game. By my material values I held a nominal material edge for much of the game. In the final position, Black has the lovely idea of sacrificing his Chancellor by moving it to d3, when if accepted a Black Amazon will penetrate decisive and soon deliver checkmate.
wrote on There seems to be a bug with the Capablanca Chess preset. When I moved my king sideways with my latest move, my opponent's king was also moved sideways by one square.
wrote on My intention was to enter the 'lost' command but finally my subconscious betrayed me... such is life!
wrote on Note to shift2shift:
I hope you haven't forgotten about this game.
Kevin
wrote on After the Suicide on a2, the square stays highlighted. That is suspect because after that, it does not let players Promote at all. And it does not permit a second legal Suicide by the other side. This never happens before, and in MOVE PIECES BY YOURSELF, everything works fine in Promoting without prior Suicide (I should test Suicide there then promoting, guessing it will fail). Some different coding is in effect because I recall using Suicide fine in other Rococo games and not affecting Promotion or anything. We want to Draw this one, and may figure out how, because both sides were not able to make wanted moves. It's just this one Rococo game acting oddly after I have played many others perfectly.
wrote on Hey Nick:
Your last move is a mistake because after 15... b4xb1 [Hero x Dancing
Horse] 16. d1-c1;b1- [Advancer x Hero] the balance of captured pieces will
remain clearly disadvantaged for you.
Reciprocating the offer you made me at 2nd turn, let's either finish the
game by a mutual agreement draw or rectify the wrong move. The alternative
move for saving the piece would be 15.Dancing Horse b1-a3. If you choose
the later, then I would restore the position replying said move at my next
turn.
I will go for whatever you elect.
wrote on I just made a terrible move, but that aside, it looked like such a great move that my opponent resigned.
wrote on I cannot make my first move because the preset has a bug sending an error message.
wrote on Oh! I'm sorry. I forgot that catapults move like rooks.
wrote on I've unsuccessfully tried to edit my initial comment on this game. Here is
what I had hoped for it to read as:
The position in Pacey-Cetina after White's 14th move, Sac Chess game,
2016,
looks roughly balanced, and perhaps is the result of logical & best play
after the somewhat forcing sequence begun by White's 5th move. By my
tentative material values for Sac Chess pieces, Black is ahead by 1/4 of a
pawn at this stage. He has early control of some diagonals, and his amazon
is deployed, but White is ahead in the race for the open file and has a
slightly better pawn structure. I hoped these positional considerations
compensated for my supposed very slight material deficit.
Later, events turned in Black's favour when each side took on an isolated
centre pawn on the same file, which effectively shielded Black's K that
was
committed to the centre. The pawn structure in question also made White's
extra archbishop ineffective, even though it looked very nicely
centralized, hitting Black's isolated centre pawn. I kept hoping that I
had
indeed undervalued my archbishop (at least on a 10x10 board), but kept
seeing no real use for it in this particular game. Meanwhile, with the
centre secure from counterattack, Black pursued opening lines against the
White K with a pawn storm. In trying to keep lines against his K closed,
White acquired more weak pawns & squares, close to his K. Worst of all,
Black had acquired a superior number of orthognally moving pieces,
increasing his material superiority at least slightly, & he gained a
decisive bind on the only two open files. For a long time, Black had many
winning plans to choose from.
wrote on Francis Fahys wins this Maxima game. It is recorded wrong. He points out in move remark that there is fourth win condition I overlooked. Maxima has 3 win conditions, lone King, occupying Fortress, and checkmate. Actually there is 4th way to lose, occupying own Fortress. So this is loss for White, and win for Fahys as Black.
wrote on Pls feel free to take the moves back assuming a rook behind is not really interesting anymore.
wrote on OK dear opponent, something went wrong, I'm trying to take the pawn with my Lion and put my Lion back to its original square - which is allowed for the Lion. But now my Lion is gone. What next??
wrote on OK first I had to click the message saying I was to move and then it worked. (??????)
wrote on Hello, I want to move the pawn in front of my queen, but whatever I do with my mouse nothing happens.
wrote on The position in Pacey-Cetina after White's 14th move, Sac Chess game, 2016,
looks roughly balanced, and perhaps is the result of logical & best play
after the somewhat forcing sequence begun by Black's 4th move. By my rather
tentative material values for Sac Chess pieces, Black is ahead by 1/4 of a
pawn at this stage. He has early control of some diagonals, and his amazon
is deployed, but White is ahead in the race for the open file and in
deployment of his king and its respective rook. I hoped the upshot of these
positional considerations compensated for my supposed very slight material
deficit.
Later, events turned in Black's favour when each side took on an isolated
centre pawn on the same file, which effectively shielded Black's K that was
committed to the centre. The pawn structure in question also made White's
extra archbishop ineffective, even though it looked very nicely
centralized, hitting Black's isolated centre pawn. I kept hoping that I had
indeed undervalued my archbishop (at least on a 10x10 board), but kept
seeing no real use for it in this particular game. Meanwhile, with the
centre secure from counterattack, Black pursued opening lines against the
White K with a pawn storm. In trying to keep lines against his K closed,
White acquired more weak pawns & squares, close to his K. Worst of all,
Black gained a decisive monopoly on the only two open files. For a long
time, Black had many winning plans to choose from.
wrote on Critics and skeptics of the feasibility of this game might see it as a test of knowledge about chess variants, and not as a game that is very fun to play.
In this particular case, both players have to know the two important writings 'Nachtmahr' and 'Passed Pawns, Scorpions and Dragon' by Jörg Knappen and George Duke, respectively, to move properly the Quintessence or Essential Nightrider [c1/c8] and the Dragon [e1/e8]. Since the third piece that must be dropped is nothing less than the Lion [Chu Shogi's Shishi], players will have to be familiar with this game too.
Reviewing this starting setup, we see it's perfectly legal because there is no any undefended pawn that may be capturable at the first turn. The pawn on f2 is protected by the c1-Quintessence Nightrider via c1-d3-f2, while the pawn on f7 is protected via c8-d6-f7.
Look out! After 1... p c7-c6, the h2-pawn is pinned.
wrote on To avoid that the board be overcrowded, I'm thinking to change slightly the mechanics of dropping pawns. Players will have 5 chances for dropping any pawn [as currently is stated] but now they will be more separated from each other.
For Blue:
1st: the pawn on S1 at any turn between the 6 and 10 (including 6 and 10)
2nd: the pawn on T1 at any turn between the 16 and 20 (including 16 and 20)
3rd: the pawn on U1 at any turn between the 26 and 30 (including 26 and 30)
4th: the pawn on S2 at any turn between the 36 and 40 (including 36 and 40)
5th: the pawn on T2 at any turn between the 46 and 50 (including 46 and 50)
6th: the pawn on U2 at any turn between the 56 and 60 (including 56 and 60)
7th: the pawn on S3 at any turn between the 66 and 70 (including 66 and 70)
and so on.
For White:
1st: the pawn on S18 at any turn between the 7 and 11 (including 7 and 11)
2nd: the pawn on T18 at any turn between the 17 and 21 (including 17 and 21)
3rd: the pawn on U18 at any turn between the 27 and 31 (including 27 and 31)
4th: the pawn on S17 at any turn between the 37 and 41 (including 37 and 41)
5th: the pawn on T17 at any turn between the 47 and 51 (including 47 and 51)
6th: the pawn on U17 at any turn between the 57 and 61 (including 57 and 61)
7th: the pawn on S16 at any turn between the 67 and 71 (including 67 and 71)
and so on.
wrote on Thanks for having played, Erik.
Certainly, there is a short forced mate in 3:
37.Kh4 Qh3+
38.Kg5 Qf5+
39.Kh4 Qi5#
wrote on I blundered early and lost a Knight for a Pawn at turn 8. I then tried to make up for this by going after stronger pieces with weaker pieces. Since so many pieces are very powerful in this game, it wasn't too hard to target powerful pieces, and the early part of the game included a series of consecutive captures. Finally, I was out of the weakest pieces, and the board cleared out enough for strategic maneuvering without capturing all the time. Although I was still a piece behind, it helped that I was otherwise ahead in material. At turn 46, I pinned a Dragon King (Sailor) with a Dragon Horse (Missionary). Instead of taking it right away, I kept up the pin and attacked the Amazon on turn 48. John blocked with a Pawn, which broke the connection between his Bishop and Dragon Horse, but that didn't last, as I moved away, and he moved the Pawn forward again. With turn 51, I attacked the pinned Dragon King with a Chancellor, threatening to take it without cost or to exchange one piece for both it and its defender. John defended with his Chancellor, and I attacked with a Pawn. He moved the pinned piece away from the Pawn's attack without breaking the pin. Since this exposed an attack on my Chancellor from his, I defended it with my Amazon. John attacked this with his Dragon Horse, which broke the connection between his Dragon Horse and Bishop. After I moved my Amazon to safety, he moved his Bishop to block the line between the two Chancellors. While this stymied my assault on the Dragon King, it had served the purpose of drawing pieces away from the other side of the board. In particular, his Bishop and Dragon Horse had been well-placed to defend against attacks. Now that their formation had been broken up, I attacked his Amazon with my Archbishop again. At turn 55, he blundered with an ineffectual block. I captured the blocking piece, protected by my Chancellor, forking the King and Amazon. Since his King's retreat moved it behind the Amazon, which pinned his Amazon, and it also broke the pin on his Dragon King, I left the Amazon pinned and took the Dragon King first with the Dragon Horse that had been pinning it. After he took my Dragon Horse, I took his Amazon. At this point, I had the decisive advantage of having an Amazon while he had none. But we still had the same number of non-Pawn pieces, and he had enough to keep his King defended. After some maneuvering, we exchanged Chancellors on turn 61. On turn 64, I exchanged my remaining Dragon Horse for a Bishop, leaving his Dragon Horse unprotected and open to attack. From that point, I had much stronger forces and soon won.
wrote on Yes, that seems fair. I suspected that something had changed (I could tell in his playing style), but I couldn't put my finger on it. If the impostor took over his email account, said impostor could easily have changed the password and sent the 'verification email'. It would seem that this occurred some months back...
wrote on Check.
wrote on Thank you very much for adding my name to the previous comment, and
especially for the (incredibly swift) reply.
I certainly hope that you are right, but I have to say that I have a bad
feeling about this. Almost immediately after the series of farcical moves
from Black began, Jeremy Hook himself got the impression he was being
trolled (not getting lucky), so much so that he even said so when making
his next move. And Carlos has not responded since then, nor has he posted
any comment ANYWHERE on the site in at least a week (if not much more than
that; I'll have to check).
I have just sent an email to Carlos Cetina regarding this. In the best-case
scenario, he'll reply within a day or two and the whole thing will be
resolved.
wrote on I added your id to the previous comment by editing the database. We have the same email address for Carlos as he had a few years ago. If someone has stolen his account he can let us know, but I doubt it has happened. No one can steal a password from the database, since they are all encrypted, and no one can change his password without access to his email account.
wrote on The comment below this one (posted on 2016-01-03) was by me, Cameron Miles.
I have no idea why my name wasn't displayed next to that comment, nor have
I been able to figure out how to edit the comment (so as to give my name at
the end of it) in any way.
What matters most to me right now, though, is that someone sees these
comments of mine, and tries to contact Carlos Cetina in some way. I
STRONGLY suspect that his account has been taken over by someone else
(maybe a skilled hacker, or a thief who has stolen his computer), and that
'someone' is now making moves without his consent. It is, after all, quite
obvious at this point that Black's last 6 or 7 moves have had the sole
motivation of losing the game as quickly (and perhaps
ludicrously/comically, depending on one's sense of humor) as possible.
wrote on Let's post one more test comment.
wrote on Another test comment.
wrote on What sort of nonsense is this?! It looks like Carlos Cetina`s CVP account
has been hacked by someone with an immature sense of humor. I myself have
played a number of games with Carlos, and trust me - you could not PAY HIM
to play a move like 49... k b1-c2. There is absolutely NO WAY he would
intentionally do that, and I am already 100% convinced that someone else is
now making Black`s moves without permission.
Carlos, if you`re reading this, I`d strongly recommend that you change your
password for this site. And the ridiculous 49... k b1-c2 move should be
taken back. If Jeremy Hook objects to this, might there be some way to
verify that the move was indeed made by an ``impostor``?
Test comment.
wrote on OK. Gracias. Feliz Navidad!
wrote on Hello, Carlos, and thanks. I will be happy to pick up this game with you
again. You played a previous game very well - iirc, I was lucky to draw,
and I have not played any variants since I was last visibly here. I have
been looking in on the site, and even doing the occasional bit of editorial
work, once in a while. I do not expect to take up more than a game or two
at any time, but this design is one of my personal favorites, and you are
one of the best players onsite. It will take me a little while to get back
into the game, which I had totally forgotten about, as it is a rather
different sort of game.
I hope you are well. Too many people I knew here are no longer around, and
I miss them. Heh, and none of us are getting any younger. (I will be 68 in
March.) Merry Christmas, amigo.
wrote on Welcome back, Joe! Let us follow playing this so interesting game!
wrote on I suppose neither player noticed or cared that the final position was not
(quite yet) a real checkmate, since in this case the outcome of the game
was not affected. The game would have ended in similar fashion after:
55. k 9h-8g G*8h (check) 56. k 8g-9f S*9e (check) 57. k 9f-8e N*7c
(checkmate)
Still, a 'false checkmate' error such as this should be a red flag that
the rule-enforcement code for Shogi presets is not quite right, and is
worth looking into. The problem is likely to plague many more games if left
unresolved.
wrote on Sorry,Mate.
wrote on SORRY WRONGG! NO MATE!
wrote on Tried to resign the other game, but it didnt work
wrote on not that difficult
wrote on OK. Don't worry. Have a nice game!
wrote on Sorry, but I completely fouled up that move. Would you take it back please? Thanks!
wrote on sorry, I managed to botch it up. if you could take back my move I would be most appreciative. Thanks!
wrote on No experience yet.
wrote on I moved your piece back, because your move was illegal.
wrote on This is copied from the user's guide:
'To add a space where there wasn't one, you can either add a piece there,
which will automatically add a space too, or you can just drop an empty
space on the location. You can do this by using the @ sign to represent an
empty space. For example, @-a9 would add a new empty space at the location
a9.
To remove a space, move nothing to it, as in -f3, which tells the program
that neither a piece nor an empty space should occupy location f3.'
To shift a space you have to remove it and add it somewhere else.
wrote on How does one move a space after one's move?
wrote on The moves in this game must be typed by hand. You write the move by yourself, for example 'e2-f3; I-f8' for throwing a stone on f8
wrote on How does one throw stones?
wrote on I do that for you.
wrote on Upon reading the rules, I discovered that my move was illegal. Sorry! How does one take back one's move?
wrote on Upon reading the rules, I discovered that my move was illegal. Sorry! How does one take back one's move?
wrote on How easy or impossible it is to catch a lone 'brain' unit depends, I
believe, very strongly on the size and make-up of the piece(s) chasing the
brain unit. Essentially a brain unit has to be trapped against the edge of
the board before it can be captured. This depends strongly on the number of
guard/commoner pieces the chasing side has, I think, as they are the ones
that interdict a 3x3 area, something the brain unit cannot cross in 1
move.
In your experience, how easy or difficult is it to make legal moves with a
multi-unit piece?
wrote on the crucial thing is the endgame. a lone commander will be very hard to chase.
wrote on The game idea is ingenious. If it works I for my part do not yet know. It could be an esssentially drawish game, as many chess variants are that do not use pawns. If it turns out to work well, though, I would not change anything.
wrote on Hello, Cameron, Georg. Again, thanks for giving this game a play. Seeing it
being played was what inspired me to design Critters: Chesimals III. This
series of games has gotten very little play, and I'm afraid it shows. I
like the idea (blather on about it in the CVwiki under 'Pond Scum' and
related pages) and think it can be developed into some large but
spectacular games. To me, the pieces felt cramped on the 'small' 12x16
board. Chesimals II was an attempt to keep the small board but make the
pieces livelier and give them a little more room, and Critters is a leap of
faith, but in some ways a step back. A step back because I include some
playtested ideas from related games which in some ways destroy the idea of
a chesimal because unit swapping between friendly chesimals destroys the
individuality of each chesimal, making it a somewhat random collection of
available units that currently make up 'this' chesimal.
But either or both of you may have different opinions, and like the idea of
all chesimals moving each turn, and allowing them to swap units around, so
they don't block each other's movements. What would you change, and what
would you keep the same?
Finally, do you really think these games, and their sister games, are
essentially drawish? I haven't found that to be the case generally, but
haven't played many games, not to judge something like that. It is clear,
however, the smallest versions (these games are scalable) are extremely
drawish. As they get larger, reality overwhelms perfection, and draws go
away, in my experiences with related games. From your in-game comments, it
sounds like you've had different experiences.
wrote on Thanks, I only used it once in 20 recorded R. games and didn't want to look it up as impure rather than logical experimenting what the programmer would do.
wrote on We had similar problems with Golden Age Chess on a really big board
wrote on It's worth noting that Black's 15th move was illegal, and (technically speaking) so was every single move after that, because of the fact that the kings in this game may never face each other across an open file. Personally, I think a situation like this just goes to show that some chess variants (such as Seenschach and other games that are similarly jam-packed with unusual rules and pieces) are simply too exotic to be considered legitimately playable. Not every game that is good 'on paper' is going to play well in practice.
wrote on Hello. In case you haven't found this yet (you probably have), the move to
enter here for a capture by mutual destruction would be 'h8-g7; @-g7'.
This info can be found at the following address:
http://play.chessvariants.org/pbm/presets/rococo.html
wrote on The slow play is I want to mutually destruct, and it didn't work yet. Once I find the source for how to enter Swapper '-' I will play fast again.
wrote on Thank you for giving this game a shot. I would appreciate any comments you might have, good, bad, ugly, or downright hostile! ;) This is very much an 'idea game', and I suspect the idea might be a little better than this initial implementation. I might like to see this done with pieces which have a little more 'oomph' and a lot more room. If you turn the idea around a bit, and start with 1 brain unit and 5 - 25 units, where the units are rated by how far they can operate from the brain unit(s), you can get a better approximation of a one-celled, or at least a unitary, creature.
wrote on 1. If possible move the ariki and throw stones.
2. Try to gain territory and mobility
3. Never answer an attack of the ariki with the matatoa. He can eat up one
stone only, while the ariki can thrtow two, so he has no chance.
4. Do not advance your moa early in the game, he will get captured. Advance
him only to territory, that is controled by
your ariki
wrote on You have the columns set to 9. It looks like you want 8. You also need / in the code: rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/32/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR
wrote on Did you mean to do 6j-9g?
wrote on Julian, you are a crank.
wrote on You Free King move was illegal.
wrote on Thank you for the preset, but I would prefer using the .JF for the Wizard the .ZW for the Sorcerer the _JJ_JG for the Jumping General and the GRY for the Griffon, please.
wrote on Grand Chess rules, since this variant already doesn't allow castling, it means pawns promote to captured pieces on the 8th rank. The Courtier/Zebra gains a one step orthogonal, wazir move. See the Sorcerer in Sorcerer Chess. The Chevalier/Camel is now an Omega Chess, Wizard. The Cavalier is a regular Griffon from the piececlopedia and Grande Acedrex. The Castle/Squirrel is now a Mastadon from Mastadon Chess, it steps one or leaps two orthogonally and diagonally.
wrote on Did you delete this?
wrote on One question: regarding pawn promotion, do you know if we'll be playing
with the 'joy-leaps' to get the pawns promoted (old Stroebeck style), or
just promoting on the spot like most chess forms?
Not that I expect promotion to be a big deal in this old form of chess.
-- Rick
wrote on White's 1st move is illegal since the War Elephant does not leap.
wrote on White's 1st move is illegal since the War Elephant does not leap.
wrote on I guess we can comment here as the game progresses. OK, let's start with the standard opening...
wrote on How do Pawns promote?
wrote on What about to try Camelrider's Quadriga Chess?
If anyone is interested, the preset can be accessed here.
wrote on Don't sabotage it. Please.
wrote on 35. a8-a9 was illegal.
wrote on Seriously! The lion is a half duck it moves one step diagonally or leaps two or three steps orthogonally, an HFD. You seem to understand that in the game you are winning. Why then in the game you are losing do you keep making illegal moves with it?
wrote on Sorry, doesn't sound very interesting to me! I do not like the choice of pieces.
wrote on It won't let me move everything back in one move.
wrote on It won't let me move everything back in one move.
wrote on I am not sure how to proceed with this match
wrote on The ratings page currently reports that he has won 12.5 out of 26 games. If he had been systematically deleting his lost games, it would not say that. Also, I see that a game I won against him and four you have won against him are still here. If you know of a specific game he has deleted, let me know, and I will look for the backup.
wrote on The inviting player deletes games when he loses.
wrote on I would like to see pictures of the pieces you are making.
wrote on Yes, they can (and only they can at the beginning, but I suppose so should any pawn dropped on the second rank, no? - I'm experimenting here)....
Yes, essentially a crooked queen! Good way of seeing it. It's a Crooked Rook + Crooked Bishop.....
wrote on Can the d and e pawns make a two step first move. Is that a crooked queen on h1, 8.
wrote on This variant is inspired by Betza's Tutti Frutti and David Howe's Chess on a Longer Board with a Few Pieces Added. I am thinking of using it for my next variants tournament at the Denver Chess Club at the end of June as a way of introducing knight compounds and other basic pieces to people (I will create an extra set of six pieces to hand out so that everyone who comes to the event can take a set of these variant pieces home).
I want to experiment with this by saying [re-edited the following:] captured pawns are allowed to be re-dropped later, shogi-style...in files that don't have a pawn. This only applies to pawns, not pieces.
wrote on h15-h14 would have blocked the check, right?
wrote on Sorry by the confusion, I was only suggesting a 2nd version of this variant. Dragon Horse is a shogi piece that moves like bishop or wazir.
If you like to try Coherent Chess 2, the preset can be accessed here.
Of course, I'm willing to play both versions at the same time!
wrote on EDIT 'dragon Horses'
wrote on I'm confused now.
1. I like your game. Why not change as little as possible?
2. What are Dancing Horses???
wrote on OK. Let's apply it, if you like.
In order to make the gameplay a bit more dynamic, guards could be replaced by sliding generals while bishops replaced by dragon horses.
wrote on It is your game, we can try out anything you like. :)
But promoting them to Sissas in the way you propose would make the guards
very strong pieces. We could try the first proposal, promoting them to
2-sliders.
But still, I think, the guards would be worth more than the Bishops now,
which is odd, because you have 7 of them. Wouldn't it be better to promote
them reaching the last third of the board?
One objection here could be: such a promoted guard is a somewhat
'incoherent' piece, contradicting the simplicity of the original game. So
why not promotion to queens or sissas by reaching the last rank?
wrote on Thanks. I appreciate your concepts and agree with them largely but what
happened was that the basic idea was not exactly to create a game that were
fun nor was born from the express wish to design a chess variant. I hope to
tell the full story of its genesis some day. Meanwhile, let's explore here
how to improve it.
What do you think if guards would promote to sliding generals [Joe Joyce's
name for the piece that is a combination of 2 guards; it slides 1 or 2
squares; it may not jump; it may change direction during its move; it may
not make a null move (move off and then back onto its starting square); it
captures by landing directly on an opposing piece and ending its turn] once
they cross the middle row and enter the enemy territory? Another
possibility is that they promote to sissas instead of to sliding generals.
wrote on It is always dangerous to design a chess variant without pawn promotion. If
you design a game it is important to consider: what happens in the endgame.
This game has to be won in the middle game, for the end game is doomed to
be a draw, unless one side has gained a really big advantage. A king and a
guard will not win against a lone king. And since there is no equivalent
for a pawn endgame, reaching the endgame means nothing but reaching a
draw.
This one is a good idea for a chess variant, but if an idea works and how
it works can only be decided by actual game play. It is like a little
scientific theory that has to be checked in real life situations.
Since the problem is the drawn endgame, I really think you have to make a
change in the rules that have an influence on this phase of the game.
There are 2 natural possibilities.
1. To introduce some kind of promotion rule for the guards
2. To introduce a second winning possibility, for example reaching the
starting square of the opposite king with your own king.
Maybe there is also another way that I did not consider. This game is
surely worth to work on it, but with the current rule set I'm afraid it is
a flaw.
wrote on Sure... thanks!
wrote on Please check notes in other game for how pieces move.
wrote on Despite your best efforts to help me out time-wise, I forgot to move last night, but that would probably only have prolonged my misery anyway, hehe. You were most likely to win this game and the tournament.
Congrats on a well-earned and well-deserved victory. :) Please email me.
wrote on You already know my next move, but for the sake of formality: 28. P g6-f7 (check)
wrote on Next move is 27. Q f5-f7 (check)
wrote on Gah - late again. And the server continues to reject my password when
attempting to edit (not sure whether it's worth trying to contact Fergus
about it, though).
In any case, my next move is 26. P d2-c3
wrote on Won't let me edit for some reason...
Next move is 25. N c3-d5
wrote on Well, I'll go ahead and declare my next move to be 24. Q d5-f5 (check)
Rather than post a new comment here every day, I'll just edit in my
intended next move every 24 hours (except on days when I don't move at
all), at this same time of 11:00 p.m. UTC. Hopefully you'll see this in
time...
wrote on Jeremy, would it help if I declared my intended move at (say) 11:00 p.m. UTC (giving you ~1 hour to come up with your move)? I only ask this because it now looks as though you'll only have ~30-45 seconds per move from here on out, which is about how long it takes to view an opponent's move and then immediately send a response. This leaves ~0 seconds to think, which seems to defeat the whole purpose of what we're doing (to ensure the game [and by extension, the tournament] is played out to a proper conclusion).
wrote on I didn't see your comment when I made my last moves so I didn't respond til now.
Responding to your thoughtful offer... 'On any given day, I will either move once at 12:00 a.m. UTC (give or take [at most] 5 minutes), or not at all.'
...I won't object to this but neither can I demand it since I made everyone wait for months and months for my moves, for no really great reason other than that I was intimidated...
Best regards.
wrote on Very well, then. I'd (mistakenly) assumed you'd either forgotten about
these games or didn't have time for them, on account of the hundreds of
other games you're currently playing, analyzing, developing, playtesting,
etc. What I did NOT want was for your unparalleled, near-superhuman
contributions to the chess variant field to (potentially) cost you 1st
place in the tournament, just because of an accidental time-out. There are
certainly some who (perhaps rightly) consider a 'gifted' win on a
technicality just as deserved a victory as a truly-earned win; I definitely
wouldn't consider myself to be one of those people.
In any case, this is all irrelevant if the time situation was in fact an
intentional part of your strategy (maybe to squeeze in as much
practice/study of this particular variant as possible??). I still hope
neither of these games is decided by time, though - Carlos has conjectured
that they may very well determine the winner of the event!
wrote on Cameron, thank you so much for the thought; that's very sportsmanlike of you! A true gentleman. But completely unnecessary since time is an essential part of the play and also I've been using it strategically. Play moves when ever you feel like it and if I time out, we can always set up the positions later and play them out for our own post-tournament benefit if we feel so inclined. If Fischer forfeited a world championship game to Spassky on time, I can too. {edited in: Timing is everything!}
wrote on Forgot to mention one thing - I'll follow exactly the same moving pattern in our other CC2 game (where I have Black) as well. This ought to be enough to prevent a 'cheap' time loss in either game.
wrote on Jeremy for the two weeks I don't see where to accept the start of a game, and thought you were still working on it. Play and Compose and other features work for me, but not the JG v. GD itself? //// It's because you are White in all the games and have to move first?
wrote on Oh I didn't realize it was mandatory. I'll resign.
wrote on 4... b g8-d5 is illegal, I believe. After 3... b a8-d5, the g8 bishop controls only the f8, g7, and h8 squares (as per the Bishop Conversion Rule).
wrote on Because I think there are simple, elegant solutions that allow us to play more games with pieces like Wusses and Zig Zag Generals and I want to play with these interesting pieces.
wrote on This kind of problems can be solved easily by applying the Pregame Rule. Why you are reluctant to implement it?
wrote on re: comments on move one: Yes, but f4 is the only vantage point from which the ZG can't be taken by the opposing ZG
wrote on Sagi: 16.DH d3-b4 was illegal. Please rectify it.
wrote on Might we give the King the option of moving either two or three squares toward the Rook when castling? I'll let you decide Carlos but if so, you should repeat that in the game so Francis is sure to see...
wrote on Thanks! Well, it seems that what you say is true. Better luck with Knightage!
wrote on Good job, Carlos! I made a classic mistake, didn't I? Moving my king into the center too early.
wrote on Francis, it seems you really have a talent for playing Ultima well. Have you tried your hand against Matthew Montchalin?
wrote on Thank you, Carlos! Very nice diagram. You are advancing my perception on this intriguing matter. I like the knight-camel alternating idea. Give me some time and I will have some more feedback for you.
wrote on True: Black's Rose wouldn't threaten the white nightrider. When I wrote that, I was still misunderstanding the Rose's move and prone to award Rose an occasional (normal) nightrider movement which [the rose] never gets. Thanks for the accurate correction!
wrote on Diagram can be seen only in the Kibbitz Listing page not in the log game.
wrote on The 3,4 trajectory would not be generated by any successive knight leaps but by alternating knight-camel jumps, so the label for that rider could be NCNC. How woud you name it?
The following diagram shows all possible routes the quintessence may run starting from r18:
We can see that there are 8 'pure' and 8 'impure' trajectories. The first are indicated by guards of a same color. The second by a mix of guards and wazirs. For example, the guard-wazir-yellow path starts from r18 then follows by GU_r s20 - GU_y q21 - W r23 - GU_y p24 - W_y q26 - GU_y o27 etc. Note that white wazirs are a sort of hinges.
What do you mean for 'more limited quintessences'? Would the above two classes fit in the idea you have in mind?
wrote on True, we both overlooked said check but the nn was not double attacked after e3-e4 because the rose could not reach d1 from e7 since its right route is e7-f5-e3-c2-a3.
wrote on We both overlooked that Black checks White with his fifth move, a check which goes unguarded. [edit:] I think if White attempts to block via d3-d4, the nightrider on d1 is then double attacked by black's nightrider (nn) and rose and could be lost...
wrote on My comments in my notes for re-entry of sixth move aren't quite accurate - need to be refined and I'm struggling with how to do so - and they also ignore the 3,4 trajectory...are there other types of more limited quintessences that might be created based on the main one's different trajectories?
wrote on Goodness gracious, what is this!? Heehee. Looks vaguely familiar. Joe, you iconoclast you.
wrote on The only reason I suggested, in my comments to my move, delete it after we are through is simply so it won't be on the same logs page as others titled by the same name 2QRHLC games...
wrote on Thanks!
wrote on Congrats, Carlos! :-)
wrote on One might well argue that the sissa is the most powerful piece in Cetran
Chess. If Queen is equal to a marshall / chancellor on an 8 x 8 board (as
many argue) then a knight-rider / rook piece with varying routes that give
it a semi-jumping status and many forking abilities should be more powerful
than a queen.
In the one endgame you played here where a queen was matched against a
sissa, the queen was no match for the sissa.
wrote on Yes, 48.b6 is the appropriate move. Since white has a material advantage of
2 units, playing rightly he should win easily. 48...axb6 is forced and,
after 49.Nxb6, white should try to promote the a-pawn combined with
tactical threats to the black king.
This game, despite some oversights by both sides, has a remarkable
educational value because you can learn how to maneuver the sissa and take
advantage of its peculiar way of movement.
Let's see how black loses immediately if he refuses to exchange pawns at
turn 48th. Hereinbelow I will use the well-known algebraic notation.
48...Sxa4 49.bxa7 Sa6 (a4-c6-a6)
The black sissa menaces to capture the a7-pawn and keeps off it promotes.
With a beautiful sequence of 3 checks, white forces the promotion.
50.Se7+ Kh8 (unique; h7 is covered by the white sissa via e7-h4-h7)
51.Sxf7+ Kg8 (unique)
52.Sg5+ (g5-d8-g8)
Now, if 52...Kh8, then 53.a8=Q+ Sxa8 54.Sxa8 (g5-d8-a8)
or 52... Se8 [(a6-c8-e8) obstructing the check but allowing the promotion]
53.a8=Q, etc.
wrote on I didn't see that. :) 48. b6 maybe?
wrote on If the preset would have enforced the rules, we would not be talking about
the oversights at moving the sissa. I should have announced check when
moved 21.S c5xe6; neither Jochen nor me saw this and therefore 21... c
b6xc4 22.Q d2-f2 c c4-c6 were illegal.
Black should announce check on turn 34... s e8-a6. I do not remember
whether I saw it or not, but the fact is that 35.R c5-b5+ was a fortunate
move blocking said check and at the same time checking the black king.
Answering your question, Jeremy: yes, black could/should exploit the
pinning of the white rook by moving 37... c7-c6 instead of 37... r d8-e8,
winning the rook. Also on turn 39... p c7-c6, instead of 39... S a6-a3+,
would have forked both rook and sissa.
wrote on I don't think so. If 47.S e5xa7, then 47... s c2xc5 (c2-f2-c5), losing the knight without any compensation.
wrote on 47. S e5 x a7 maybe?
wrote on I'm looking at black's 37th move and the fact white's rook is - and has been - absolutely pinned via Black's sissa (a check earlier may have gone unnoticed in fact)...could / should black perhaps try to exploit this (or later or earlier)?
wrote on No, Black is not worse off here. After 11... p b7xa6 12.DH g2xa8 s f8xa8 (f8-f3-a8), he could continue fighting and even win the game. Many of the games I played with Jochen were under blitz timing, hence they have many oversights like this.
wrote on It's not even clear to me that Black is worse off when he resigns here. What does anyone think? Is Black worse off here? If so, why?
wrote on Black's 3rd and 4th move are identical?
Erm never mind. :(
wrote on 26. P c4-c5 is illegal, is it not? Because it opens up a path for Caissa to checking the king, thus self-checking.
Oh, never mind, I see this was noticed and rectified during play...
wrote on True. He still is in check at the same time by three paths: d4-f4-d2 / d4-f2-d2 / d4-b4-d2. Since there is no piece that could block them, the king should move to c1 or e1. When I congratulated Vitya, did not revise the entire game move by move and hence missed such a detail that happened at turn 33 not 31.
wrote on It's quite legal. The route is b5-f5-b1. Note that it's not check since a2 and b2 are occupied.
wrote on 21... s b5-b1 - this move is illegal, is it not? By what legal route does this happen?
Oops - never mind - I see the route is b5 - f5 - b1! :-)
wrote on When White moves 31. K d1-d2, is he not still in check from the Sissa?
wrote on Cameron:
Quoting you.
'I'd be curious to hear any thoughts/analysis you might have for the CC2 game that we recently finished (about 4 weeks ago). It was quite a long game, and a lot happened in it. I already mentioned the blunder at move 43 as the last opportunity that I missed, but I'm sure I misplayed some earlier positions as well. It took far too long for me to complete development (the Black queen was a particularly useless, passive piece), and by the time I came close to doing so, there were too many threats piling up, leading to an unpleasant, defensive position.' [shatteredglass-sissa-2014-185-035]
'I really cannot say enough about the sheer diversity that is added to this game by the randomized and asymmetrical opening setups, combined with having 7 distinct major pieces. Each game seems to have its own unique 'feel', which is especially pronounced in the opening and early middlegame but continues to influence the strategies of both sides as the game progresses.' [sissa-shatteredglass-2013-355-674]
Peculiarities of this variant you point out determine that some basic notions of chess [like development of pieces] are not fully applicable here. From the first move players face the enormous challenge of finding the best strategic plan, and move after move they are the architect of their own destiny. So, I don't think the Blue queen was a particularly useless, passive piece.
In general, the game elapse more or less equaled until 28... p d6-d5? that cost to Blue one pawn. It was better 28... p h7-h5.
Another history would have been after 43... a c5-a3 44.C h1-d1 p h7-h6 45.K e2-f2 r a8-a6 46.R b6xa6 c c7xa6 47.K f2-g3 a a3xc4 48.P d3xc4+ c a6-d6, etc.
After 1.P b2-b3, Blue could have chosen a different strategic plan by moving 1... p e7-e6, with the idea of replying 2.DH c1-b2 dh d8-f6 or 2.DH c1-a3+ dh d8-e7.
wrote on Something has gone wrong with the time controls. They were set to 30 days spare time and 30 days extra time, but after I moved, Chuck Lee had only 30 seconds to move and soon lost on time. I will look into this, maybe tomorrow. I will eventually delete this game, but I wanted to leave notice about what happened for a while.
wrote on http://www.chessvariants.org/piececlopedia.dir/griffon.html
wrote on How does the Gryffon move? There is no description of the game here, and the link to the rules just goes to the rules for Chess.
wrote on The problem is now fixed. The stalemated subroutine for Alice Chess had a bug in it that moved the Rook from D1 to D2 while checking its legal moves.
wrote on 14. K e1-d1 is an illegal move, because the Rook is at D1. The mystery is why the Rook suddenly showed up at D2 instead of D1. I followed your game move by move, and the Rook appeared on D1 up until the last move, when it suddenly appeared on D2 without being moved.
wrote on Wanted to mention one thing -- the final update that I sent to the admin to
post up has one difference from the rules I told you. It occurred to me at
the last minute that a King can checkmate a Prince by itself, so I changed
the King's value to 3 (which is more than the 2.5 compensation Black
gets). This only affects scoring, and shouldn't have any significant
impact on the first stage of the game. It's up to you whether you want to
use the old value we agreed to going into this game, or the new value of
3.
Other than that, everything should be as we talked about on the A.C.
comment page.
wrote on The preset appears to be bugged, as 14.K-D1 is indeed a legal move. Of course, 14...q-G1 would be checkmate on the next move, so (fortunately) the outcome of the game wasn't affected.
wrote on Hmm. Why can't I move the king to D1?
Oh well. Good game!
wrote on Oops... What a bad move i made. -__\\
Nevermind, punish me for carelessness.
Nevermind, punish me for carelessness.
wrote on EDIT: The last part of my comment for move 18 is now out of date. Daniil Frolov has accepted the open invitation for 'Cylindrical Cinders vs. Meticulous Mashers' referred to in that paragraph. Of course, there are plenty of other armies and match-ups for CwDA that are still unplayed, and that I would like to try out (such as the Spacious Cannoneers vs. one of the more standard armies).
wrote on I seem to have made a mistake and now I cannot access the game. I will start a new one.
wrote on They appear fine to me.
wrote on The pieces on the Board are all messed up.There is a bug. Please fix this ASAP.
wrote on Rules for NOBLE WING Chess -
Standard chess pieces, standard moves, APART from the following:-
Queens Bishop ( ARCHBISHOP ) Moves and takes as standard Rook, with option
of moving ONE square in ANY direction instead - thus able to change from
black to white and back later if needed. NO taking permitted with the move
option, however - check and mate ARE valid with this option.
Queens Knight ( BARONKNIGHT! ) moves and takes as standard Knight, with
option of moving ONE square in ANY direction instead. NO taking permitted
with this move option, however - check and mate ARE valid with this
option.
Queens Rook ( EARLROOK ) moves and takes as standard Rook, with option of
moving UP TO FOUR squares DIAGONALLY instead. NO taking permitted with this
move option, however - check and mate ARE valid with this option.
PAWN PROMOTION - As in some other variations,
promotion can only be from a choice of LOST pieces.
CHECK and CHECKMATE - same as standard chess, BUT with the inclusion of the
moves from the above mentioned three variation pieces.
Mark Simpson
wrote on Can pawns promote into queens in this game? How far does the pawn on the
first rank move?
wrote on 
White to move.
The rook on d2 is obstructing the sissa's checking path d1-d4-a1. It is SEMI pinned. Rg2, Rf2, Re2 and Rc2 are illegal moves; but Rb2, Rd3 and Rd4 are legal since the rook itself obstructs the checking path. On the d column the illegality begins at d5 and follows to d6 and d7.
Might White make Rxd8+? Is the movement of the pieces on the board an untimed, instantaneous action? Or like in the real world they spend some time to go from one another square?
The position is taken from this game: sissa-judgmentality-2009-182-888
wrote on Many many offensive tactical opportunities in this game, but it's so hard to defend from them. I don't remember being beaten so badly at this game since I first played it. Care for a rematch?
wrote on Symmetry hasn't made this game any better than Chess. Altogether, it seems more awkward.
wrote on Are you going to continue to play this game?
wrote on This game is over and Palladino ran out of time but the opposite is recorded. I was White and made the last move of the Knight, and days later Palladino ran out of time as Black. So the recording result is wrong. I made all the White moves in the log, and he made all the Black moves in the log.
wrote on Timed out, but not recording it.
wrote on I won't move until tomorrow to check again. Refinement: the only pieces
being moved several turns are the two Pawns and the Immobilizer.
Immobilizer was twice on e3. When 25 I-e3, the Pawns are at e5 and f4.
When 27 I-e3, the Pawns are at g4 and f4. Those are two different
positions. So moving next again 'I-e3' duplicates move 27 for only second
repetition. The Immobilizer is free to move there again.
wrote on Please check for sure before we decide. To Todor Tchervenkov: After move 25 of White 'Immobilizer to e3', Black Pawn is at f4. After move 27 of White 'Immobilizer to e3', same Black Pawn is at g4. The rule of Rococo is agreed that upon a move causing or making a careless third repetition of exact same position, that is Loss for the side moving. I think now if I move Imm. back to e3, Black has to find a different move than to g3... The pairing of Imm. on e3 and the Pawn g3 would be first instance of a third repetition.
wrote on George Duke,
Re: Rococo game
Please check your email. I have query about Swapper adjacent move.
Kind Regards,
Chung Lee
wrote on The game is actually lionhawk as black and kokosz as white. Despite what the log says.
wrote on Going by the rules of Chinese Chess as they are described on this website, the Blue (Black) player who keeps checking the Red player with his Chariot should break off the perpetual checks. There is no draw by perpetual check in Chinese Chess. To prevent draws of this kind, perpetual check has been forbidden in Chinese Chess. If the Blue player thinks this is not correct, he should cite a source more authoritative than this website.
wrote on I think I learn better when I made a move and you tell me whether I did mistakes or not... anyway how you add comments after the move?
wrote on Does this comment work?
wrote on Sorry, I just made an illegal move, and I didn't know that such a move would be accepted. Make some move, and then I think I will be able to take it back two moves, but I can't change anything now it seems.
wrote on (deleted)
wrote on I wish you good luck in this noble game, which has existed in its present
form for more than 1,000 years.
/Mats
wrote on I received your comment and decided to try one in response.
wrote on There are two ways to make your move. Joe Joyce wrote:
'You've gone into the game 'the wrong way'. Either click on the link in any of the email notifications you received that it was your turn, or go to 'what's New' at chessvariants.org, click on the top item there - the most recent game courier move. This will take you to the Game Courier logs page. Enter your name and password there, and submit. When your list of games comes up, click on your name rather than the game log itself, to get to the game.'
wrote on Oh weird. It works now! Thank you.
And now of course I went and did a very stupid move. lol
wrote on You've gone into the game 'the wrong way'. Either click on the link in
any of the email notifications you received that it was your turn, or go to
'what's New' at chessvariants.org, click on the top item there - the
most recent game courier move. This will take you to the Game Courier logs
page. Enter your name and password there, and submit. When your list of
games comes up, click on your name rather than the game log itself, to get
to the game.
I think that's right. Any problems, let me know.
wrote on Those boxes are gone. Now all it has as fields are: White, Black, View (moves), Piece set, Orientation and Background. There is no field for me to enter my information.
wrote on Make sure your username and password are typed into all the boxes required. That's the first thing to check. I'm assuming you haven't changed your password or anything like that.
wrote on I don't know why, but Game Courier doesn't recognize me any more! How do I log in??
wrote on Whoops, please disregard the last comment. I solved the problem. I didn't realize that the site would send me an email and that I have to move by going through my email to the site.
wrote on Hi. This is my first game on this site. I can't get the move entered. I
did some practice moves before I started this game and it worked fine, but
this time there is no response when I try to put my cursor in the blank and
enter the move. what do I need to do?
Thanks
wrote on Wizards... I hate them. :)
wrote on Didn't think of that, actually.
wrote on Oops, I could have checked with the bishop.
wrote on Hi there!
wrote on Those wizards are tricky!
wrote on Instead of 'outward' I mean 'forward'.
Aanca's legal moves from f6:
1)f6-f7-g8-h9
2)f6-f7-e9-d11
3)f6-g6-i5-k4
4)f6-g6-h7-i8
5)f6-g5-i4-k3
6)f6-g5-h3-i1
7)f6-f5-e4-d3
8)f6-f5-g3-h1
9)f6-e6-c7-a8
10)f6-e6-d5-c4
11)f6-e7-d9-c11
12)f6-e7-c8-a9
Gryphon's legal moves from f6:
1)f6-g7-h7-i7-j7
2)f6-g7-g8-g9-g10
3)f6-h5-i4-j3-k2
4)f6-h5-i5-j5-k5
5)f6-g4-h3-i2-j1
6)f6-g4-g3-g2-g1
7)f6-e5-e4-e3-e2
8)f6-e5-d5-c5-b5
9)f6-d7-c8-b9-a10
10f6-d7-c7-b7-a7
11)f6-e8-e9-e10-e11
12)f6-e8-d9-c10-b11
wrote on Oops, didn't see this comment :P
Bishops get 2&4 dimensional moves, Rooks 1&3. Pawns don't get an initial two-step. Kings and Queens get to move in any direction. I was thinking no fortresses for now. The rest of your notes are correct.
wrote on I am so excited to see this! I don't check my isu email very often as i
have graduated, but I will continue to check it periodically...
Want to agree on the rules we will follow? I assume we are doing the
basics,
p-<1,0,0,0> FORWARD ONLY (2 on first move) <1,1,0,0> to capture (a forward
and a lateral move)
B- or for k between one and four
R- or
Kn-<2,1,0,0>
Q- or k,k,0,0> or or
k-<1,0,0,0>
Or would you rather a fortress? I think this follows closer to real chess
to limit the king this way...
Note: Any piece must get to the destination by a strait line and can not
move through any piece, and so on? Order of dimensions does not matter to
any piece other than the pawn? Anything else I missed? Do we need any other
adjustments? I haven't played since we used to (yeah almost 2 years ago)
wrote on Hello Jose! I've received your invitation, but i've refused because i haven't yet read instruction of Random Korean Chess
wrote on There was a discrepancy between the time left reported on the logs page (which was four days), and the time left measured by Game Courier itself (less than zero seconds). So I lost on time due to a bug, and I now need to figure out whether the mistake was on the logs page or with Game Courier.
wrote on Oh no, thanks! I'm a little busy! But thanks for the offer
wrote on Hello Jose! I live in Poland but i'm Italian.
wrote on Does the preset announce a draw due to stalemate before the final move is
submitted? I hadn't thought about that. But I was careful to avoid
stalemate, most notably when capturing the white rook: taking with the king
was fine while taking with the elephant would have been stalemate.
In the final position, I believe Black has mate in three: 79. Kh3 Kf3 80.
Kh2 Rc1 81. Kh3 Rh1#
There were some key mistakes by both sides, but all in all it was a good game, well fought from start to finish.
wrote on Now then, Phoenix...I thought you had grown weary of this site. Kidding. It's good to see you here. I'm sorry about my abrupt disappearance from Richard's. I had me some of them troubles. Care to play 2 games- one of my choosing, and one of yours? (No Ultima, though...I'm not terribly smart ...and no 4 dimensional games...again, I'm not smart enough).
wrote on Yes, that Vao was a strong piece that I couldn't manage to get rid of. I
think it was a mistake to put my King on g9, as there was just too much
danger on the 13-h10 diagonal. It was also a mistake to move my Queen off
of that diagonal; I was trying to find some offensive activity, but this
move weakened my position too much.
I didn't realize that checkmate was coming immediately (though I knew it
couldn't be far off), since i9 appeared to be guarded according to
standard chess optics. Unfortunately I can't make any similar excuse for
failing to anticipate the knight fork.
I like Eurasian Chess, even though I have trouble playing it well. Even
very early in the game one has to be alert for attacks by the Cannons and
Vaos, and I think in each game I've managed to get myself into trouble by
playing what seemed to be sensible developing moves. Perhaps I'll improve
after the publication of the first book on EC opening theory....
wrote on I like how the final position in this game shows the power of the Vao,
which can become the weakest piece in the game in a more bare endgame.
Although the Vao isn't protecting the Queen like a Bishop would, this
position would not be checkmate if I had a Bishop on c3 instead of the Vao.
The Vao prevents the Queen's capture by the Rook, because the Rook would
become a screen for the Vao to capture the King if it captured the Queen.
Basically, capturing the Queen would leave the King in check, because the
Queen is a screen for the Vao, and capturing the Vao would leave the King
in check from the Queen.
Earlier in the game, I moved the Vao into a diagonal with Black's King,
Queen, and other pieces, knowing that this should eventually pay off. It
did pay off after the Queen moved out of the diagonal and my Knight
captured the Pawn. After that, Black should have captured the Knight,
allowing me to take the Bishop and the Vao. But Black left the Knight
alone, leaving it free to fork the King and Queen. After that, it wasn't
difficult to move toward checkmate.
wrote on Not exactly sure... I have only moved the white then the red rooks over the last couple moves...
wrote on Not exactly sure... I have only moved the white then the red rooks over the last couple moves...
wrote on Yes, Nick. Thank you!
wrote on Just trying to understand the sissa on this board. Is the white king checked by the sissa, here?
wrote on I was fully expecting to lose this game, since Armin had a huge lead on me in material, but I tend to stubbornly refuse to resign from games, even when I'm seriously behind, and it sometimes pays off, as it did in this game, which I won despite being a Queen and three Pawns behind with my King already trapped by his Queen.
wrote on I cannot make move charging rook e3-d4 because of bug in code, I think.
wrote on Searching with [Userid:] zdra4 will allow you to delete unplayed games like this.
wrote on OK, since it looks like we can't delete comments here:
I apologize for all personal attacks I have made.
- Sam
wrote on At present, there seems to be no way for editors to edit kibbitzing comments. We need David Howe to fix this. In the meantime, I would ask all parties to end the current line of discussion and avoid any and all personal attacks.
wrote on Som Drinholm, you are very stupid.
Possibly, but I think it would be best if you stop the personal attacks. I hope I can get someone to just delete this entire thread. Like I said, I think people are taking this tournament far too seriously.
wrote on Som Drinholm, you are very stupid.
wrote on I will withdraw from the tournament then. I will finish all games (except this one, which I will resign from ) still being played, but please do not sign me up for more games.
The fact of the matter is that I don't have time for this tournament, not if it's going to be taken this seriously. I expected something which was more casual than what you guys want.
I apologize for the withdraw.
- Sam
wrote on Sam,
I am sorry you will be quitting the tournament. I hope you will change your
mind, but I will not accept your ultimatum as the slightest reason for
allowing you to take back a move which under other circumstances I would
not allow you to take back. The standing rule is that no move should be
taken back in the tournament unless (1) it was illegal or (2) it was taken
back despite being legal, and taking it back again restores the original
move. As I understand the situation, you want to take back a move because
you did not understand that the Sliding General is a slider rather than a
leaper. The rules clearly state that the piece is a linear slider, and in
case that was an unfamiliar term, the rules go on to say that the Rook is a
linear slider. The rules make it crystal clear, with no ambiguity, that
this piece is not a full leaper. Furthermore, I did not program it to leap
two spaces. So, there is no basis for your claim that you should be allowed
to take back a move in this situation. I wish you well with your marriage.
Stay in the tournament if you like, and bear in mind that threatening to
quit will not help you in any way.
wrote on [Delete me]
wrote on 'Either allow me to take back these moves or I will withdraw from this
tournament.'
LOL! :))) I don't like to play with such 'player' in tournament. Bye!
wrote on 'the rules were not clearly written and having one fairy piece able to
leap but another fairy piece not able to leap is confusing'
What has one piece to another? It is different pieces and have different
moves.
'Sliding General: this piece is a linear slider, moving 1 or 2 squares
orthogonally or diagonally'
'Elephant: this piece steps 1 or jumps 2 squares diagonally.'
LoL! I'm not english-speaking, but I understand these rules fully...
wrote on Sam you read without any attention (as I noted before the tournament).
It's not a blitz-tournament. Do you know what is a blitz?! The rules are
clear for this variant.
You cannot take back you moves by your wish.
Hope your wife will have no such problems with you. :)
wrote on [Delete me]
wrote on Right! I don't played well this position because I don't like it. I had
advantage in the opening, but made some mistakes. I have to think when you
equalize the game.
Thank you for the game!
wrote on Help, we are having different interpretations of the rules, looking for
outside input.
In football chess, based on rules as listed, must a player kick the ball at
least once if he can?
Thanks in advance.
wrote on It will work now. The wrong spaces were flagged at the start of the game, and that is now fixed.
wrote on I cannot make castling.
wrote on This preset has different diagonal colorings from the image provided in the rules. They are reversed for Black and White. Since Black and White have different goals, this has strategical implications.
wrote on There was another typo. It has now been fixed.
wrote on trying to move sg8 to g7 says cant move that piece forward?
wrote on This was a very intense game. Vitya played with great skill, often playing better responses to my moves than what I had anticipated. This would make a good example game for anyone interested in Kamikaze Mortal Shogi to study.
wrote on trying to move sg8 to g7 says cant move that piece forward?
wrote on There was a typo is the code for enforcing the rules. It is now fixed.
wrote on trying to move n g7 to g6, presets will not allow this move ??
wrote on ...as did I...and it worked.
Perhaps it had to do with solar bursts or organic chicken matter...either
way, glad it worked and thanks for your attention to the matter Fergus.
wrote on I just tried that move, and it worked.
wrote on Trying to move my numskull from e1 to f1. Preset keeps saying 'you cannot capture your own piece'. Is there a bug in the preset or am I overlooking something? Thanks for any help.
wrote on n h6-f2. I think it's illegal.
Interesting game. I'd like to play it.
wrote on Vitya,
You can now move your King. The bug in the Eurasian Chess preset is fixed.
wrote on Why has this game continued past the capture of both Brains? The object is to capture your opponent's Brain, at which point the game ends.
wrote on No, because of cannon e10-f9.
wrote on On turn 5, could Armin have played h5-g8 instead of taking the chariot and done a smothered mate? I am just trying to get the hang of this game. Thanks!
wrote on I fixed a bug in the hexshogi include file that was responsible for it falsely determining that I was stalemated after Vitya made his first move. I also replaced the log with its backup. So the game is back at the beginning with Vitya to make his first move again.
wrote on Sorry for the delay.
wrote on Had you wanted to, you could have castled with the king immediately placed at h1./Mats
wrote on Yes, I realize that. We have tried every command we know. won, resign, lost, drawn. These commands didn't work and yield an error. I figured I would try that command because it at least let me get to the submission page.
wrote on Nick, you typed 'resign-', this command will not work with a '-' on the end.
wrote on I think black's last move might better have been Ram h11-g11, or moving the catapult/king to f11, say, would allow the king to step off the catapult and capture the Trojan horse. That not only guards the g10 square, which I had originally intended to occupy, but it guards or blocks the g11 square. Had I then played Trojan horse [knight + archer] to g10, you could even have traded the ram for the Trojan horse, and, as far as I can see, come out ahead.
wrote on Won't let Nick resign.
wrote on Nicholas: When I played my guard forward turning into a bishop to check
your king, it was meant as a sacrifice. I knew it could be captured but
thought I could checkmate your Wuss with c8-a2, only realizing too late
that my Silver Bullet would manifest its rook side and not be checking your
wuss on x1. So my diabolical 7th move turned out to be a blunder. This
lesson did however give me an idea! (Which I executed in our actual game.)
Wuss has nowhere to move so game is lost. Had you moved your a1 Silver Bullet instead to create necessary Luft, my next move would have been moving my Philidor from c7-c6 turning it into a Berolina with threat of c6-d5 turning back into regular pawn again and trapping your Famous Oxford Don on e4! You could then move c3-a4, turning your Regret into a Knight and threatening to fork my wuss and queen on b7. I would then move my Wuss to remove that threat. Just some reflections.
wrote on 4. ... Lf5? 5.R*xf5 [b1-a3-b5-d6-f5]
L = lion
R* = rose
wrote on Nice attack, Jeremy!
wrote on Nick, 43 move incorrect because of Maorider
wrote on Are you sure? Not seeing it. For example: 22.....h3-g2 23. K e1-f2 c g2xRh1
24. K f2-g1 h1xPf3 check (cardinal=princess protected from Marshall=empress capture by n on d4).
wrote on After this king net Cardinal.
wrote on Would 22...h3-g2+ have netted Black a rook?
wrote on For the information of the casual viewer: this game was played using a different Unicorn piece from this webpage. Shortly after this particular game began, the Raumschach preset was corrected to show alternate colors for the squares on the second and fourth boards.
See also L. Lynn Smith's Zillions file for Monster 3D Chess. In that 6x6x6 variant the Unicorn moves as in classic Raumschach, while the colorbound Hippogriff 'leaps to the opposite corner of a 2x2x3 area'.
wrote on Jeremy: I have continued thinking on drops subject and believe it is perfectly possible that Black maintains the option of making not only the first but every.
What we need is to establish the drop order of both players with a dephasing of one turn between them, something like this:
Black's:
1st at any turn between 6 and 10 (including 6 and 10)2nd at any turn between 11 and 15 (including 11 and 15)
3rd at any turn between 16 and 20 (including 16 and 20)
and so on.
White's;
1st at any turn between 7 and 11 (including 7 and 11)2nd at any turn between 12 and 16 (including 12 and 16)
3rd at any turn between 17 and 21 (including 17 and 21)
and so on.
Everything is possible in this beautiful world!
Regarding castling, I maintain my initial proposal:
- If the king falls on the corners, there is no need of any castling;- If he falls on b1/b8 or g1/g8, then the king would remain there and the piece on the nearest corner to him would leap to c1/c8 or f1/f8.
- If he falls on c1/c8 or f1/f8, then the king would remain there and the piece on the nearest corner would leap to d1/d8 or e1/e8.
- Finally, if he falls on d1/d8 or e1/e8, castling would be similar to FIDE's. But in this case he could castle with the piece placed at either corner by walking two steps towards the respective piece, and then this piece leaping the king to the adjacent square; exactly as in FIDE chess happens.
wrote on Attack, you aren't right! Archer can capture by shooting or by moving.
'20. A x F7 (Archer moves and captures at F7)'
wrote on For Black's 10th move, how about ...d5-d4 followed by FAD to d5 forking bent heroes?
wrote on Spotted Gryphon This colorbound piece moves like a ferz and may also continue outward as a dabbabah-rider, until it captures a piece or is blocked from further leaping. It can reach all squares of the same color that a Gryphon can, with the advantage that its movement can only be blocked on those squares. See my Rose Chess page for a Chainsaw (Dragon) movement diagram.
wrote on Carlos: Well, as I understand it, Black has the option of making the first drop. Is that going to be true for every drop? That Black will have that option? In this case, I just chose not to exercise it.
Thanks for the clarification regarding the spotted gryphon as having dababa-rider like properties. Would it also be possible for you to link me to the original writings of Paulowich on this subject? I've been wanting to track them down because I am myself having some designs on variants featuring spotted gryphon and pieces derived from the spottted gryphon and it would be nice to have the original source.
wrote on The answer to your question, Jeremy, is YES. Your Spotted Gryphon on g8 is
certainly attaking to White's knight/wazir [provided that h5 be empty].
But be carefully with the 'matter of definition': the Spotted Gryphon IS
NOT a slider; after its first step like ferz it can follow leaping pieces
like DABABA-RIDER. Remember that dragon icon represents in this variant to
Paulowich's 'chainsaw' = rook + spotted gryphon.
I see you and Vitya are applying the new two rules suggested by you. See
Vitya already have castling, but Black should have started the drops. What
happened there? :-D
wrote on Can the Spotted Gryphon jump over pieces that are on the opposite squares over which it moves? I want to play my rose h5-h1 hoping my Spotted Gryphon (aspect of my Dragon) is also attacking that space. But since the Gryphon is a slider, not a jumper (like the dababa-rider) I'm thinking it might not be possible but I guess it's all a matter of definition. What does David Paulowich say?
wrote on I am also interested in a game on this :)
wrote on I am interested in this if I can get an invite :)
wrote on The white rose wouldn't be checking the black king from g5.
wrote on Zigzag General is indeed a very strong piece. Had Nicholas Wolff played f2-b4 on move 23, I believe that would have been checkmate.
wrote on White overlooked 1.Rose c1-b3-c5-e6-g5 mate. 'RandomChess' variants with powerful pieces can be tricky. EDIT: I must have been looking at the Pawn (g4) when I wrote about a White Rose checkmate. As you say, there is no check from g5. Tricky indeed!
wrote on Please note: Move 6, White could have just taken Black's bishop with his knight using the chameleon function!
wrote on Nick, your first move should be: ''k-d10;'' and then the move you
should have made can go after the semicolon. On the other hand, your king
can be considered extremely well-protected by means of a cloaking device.
:-) Game Courier can play some strange tricks on you. I once lost a piece
to a blank square, in a game of Hyperchess with Abdul-Rahman Sibahi, and
neither of us noticed it. Or I didn't, anyway, until long afterward, when
I was transcribing the game.
wrote on Yes. It is mate. That bent 2-step guard is a nasty piece.
wrote on I was thinking about 73. .. Mao f5-e7 as the best move.
wrote on Instead of the greedy and immediately losing move 73...pg-g5, what should I have played? I suggested 73...g3-g2. Vitya thinks it might work and gives us the following sequence: 73...g3-g2 74. h1-h4 - g4-g3 75. e3-f3 - g3-f2.
wrote on Last time I was mated in 7 moves and this time I was mated in 74 moves, both quite unexpectedly!
wrote on SS, I think
wrote on Instructive game. Black (played by me) manages to find himself checkmated in short order, not realizing that his king didn't have the ability to capture.
wrote on My own belief is that any piece that has a different movement forward than backward should be 'facing' the other side for easiest playability as with my chu shogi - alfaerie preset or my Grand Shogi preset or my demirifle army preset (look them up). Indeed, I do find it confusing to play with nutty knights army for precisely the reason Gary indicates. If Vitya would like, we will have the charging knight for this preset turned so that one can always see the dots behind it but it might take a little time before we get it added to alfaerie - many so we can implement it (a few weeks even).
wrote on It won't let me make a move.
wrote on I'm so sure there is no first move advantage in this game that the next time we play, I will let you start as white and I will pass my first turn as black, giving white 2 turns of supposed first move advantage, to demonstrate my position. ;-) Heck, maybe I'll make a 1-year challenge to all comers to prove any first move advantage by playing black and passing turn 1. Would that demonstrate this game has NO first move advantage?
wrote on Yes
wrote on yes i am still interested
wrote on Anyone think I could have won?
wrote on Joe, I like it a lot! Thank you for reexamining it and coming up with a great suggestion. You should factor it into your wiki essay on Joe's Strange Notation (for people interested I provide a link to it in my Rules page for Hullabaloo), with time and inclination. After all, notation is meant to make things more workable.
wrote on Distrusting euphoria and learning to see things through your opponent's eyes: I am often overlooking the need to defend. I tend to underestimate my opponent's powers, my opponent's whole viewpoint. Especially this can happen when I'm feeling euphoric about my own attacking chances. I try to recognize that when I'm experiencing this euphoria, to be skeptical of it and take my opponent's prospects very seriously even though I believe him/her to be considerably weakened and losing. In my last move during this game, I was so enchanted by own winning chances that I failed to properly defend and succumbed in just one move to a simple checkmate. I'm sure it's happened to many of you. I even saw that my opponent could do it but never stopped to consider that my king wasn't strong enough to get away. An object lesson in the powers of the zigzag general but a deeper lesson about the need to think through sequences of attack for weakened opponents and not just yourself. There is a saying, 'The hardest thing to do in chess is win a won game.' True for some of us sometimes at least.
Is there a specific lesson to take away from this? Rarely assume that you can defend adequately (or as you may wish) against a weakened opponent unless you calculate an actual sequence of moves. In the position I cite, I lost because I failed to calculate even one move. I just ASSUMED my king could get away and was shocked to discover that it couldn't. Was my attack premature because it left behind a king that was too poorly defended?
wrote on How about:
[D+W]/[A+F]
This specifies it is either a linear hero or a linear shaman in its
movement.
wrote on Joe: I need to describe all these pieces much better in my rules! How these various pieces move. Please see comment to white's move 5. I guess, in Joe's Notation, it's: W + A + D + F (even though we really mean that any one has the option to use the other straight line component W can use D, vice versa, A can use F, vice versa).
wrote on Hm, not sure how to do this better. Here are the relevant rules:
'Zigzag general, a bent 2-step rider. Moves twice as the jumping
general*. It may move 1 square or leap 2 squares orthogonally or
diagonally, then may do any of the 4 possible move types again. Thus it may
move 1, 2, 3, or 4 squares in a turn. It may change directions between its
first and second step. Null moves are not allowed.'
'Jumping General. Moves as either the elephant [AF] or warmachine [DW].
It may move 1 square or leap 2 squares orthogonally or diagonally. It is a
linear piece.'
Each individual step of the ZiZag General's 2 steps is linear. The step
is 1 or 2 squares. The 2 square leap is always straight, leaping over an
adjacent square to the next one directly across from the original square.
The ZZG cannot make a knight's leap in one step. Again, all its individual
moves are linear. It changes direction between steps only.
I hope this helps. As a side note, the zigzag general can reach all but 16
of the 80 closest squares, and Vitya, you picked one of those 16 squares.
:)
wrote on Joe, some clarification of the ability of one of the pieces to move might be helpful here.
wrote on Vitya: Congratulations! Nicely done!
Nicholas: Sorry for your defeat. Better luck next time!
wrote on ****As sad as I know this sounds, I do not yet have a coherent rules page for my preset of Eric Greenwood's new Rennchess II. I want to include the diagrams I created to better represent the movement schemes of the pieces in Rennchess, but I do not know how to embed them into the file.
****Anyway, the following will have to suffice for now: Here is a link to the rules page for Rennaisaisnce Chess I. The basic rules for Rennchess II are identical to those for Rennchess I, plus the addition of a new piece, the omission of two, and different starting set-up.
****Here is a letter I wrote to Carlos Cetina which explains 'who's who' with regard to the icon changes I've made in Rennchess II:
****'Carlos, these are the icons I chose for Eric's new game. I think they look a bit better, and might be easier for a newcomer to use.
****The rules for RC2 are exactly the same as those of RC1. I describe the pieces below both because there is a new one- the Courier- and several of the icons are different from RC1. They move exactly as their counterparts do in RC1, though.
****The promotion rules of RC2 are the same, as well.
****Forgive me if any, or all of the following is stuff you already know...
>>1. The champion icons at c1, j1, c10 and j10 are dual-path griffins. They are known as 'Cavaliers' in RC.
>>2. At f1 and g10 we find dual-path aancas. They are 'Dukes.'
>>3. The icons at c2, j2, c9 and j9 are called 'Couriers' in RC2, and move as either an alfil or a ferz. They are the sole new piece in RC2. If you know the Phoenix of Chu Shogi, than you know this piece.
>>4. e2 and f9 contain a ferz/wazir/alfil/dababbah hybrid (one step in any direction, or a jump to a second square orthog. or diag.) called a 'Squire.' Note, it may not change direction mid-move.
>>5. h2 and e9 each contain a 'Page,' which moves as either a guard or a knight.
>>6. a1, l1, a10, and l10 contain 'Castles,' which may jump to ANY second square like a knight, a dababbah, or an alfil. They may not make a one-step move. I like this piece.
****The rest of the pieces are certainly obvious to you. I hope this game 'works!' Thank you for trying it!'****Does anyone know how Eric Greenwood is doing? I'd really like to show him this preset. I do think it LOOKS pretty good, rules or no rules...!
wrote on I'll play anyone who does not mind a game with no time limit.
wrote on I believe Black's 3rd move is illegal as that piece can only leap forward diagonally two squares, not one.
wrote on Kitchen is closing, Joe, time to make a move.
wrote on Whoops! Guess that would explain why it's not working!
Thanks, David.
wrote on Rule 6 There is no castling in this game.
wrote on Help! I'm stuck! This rule-enforcing preset is broken and it's not letting me castle. Does anyone have access to fix the code, or to turn off rule enforcement?
wrote on This preset is broken; I can't castle
wrote on Nobody but Vitya responded to the email in regards to what to do with the first round of the tournament since both games screwed up. It has been decided to redo the first round of the tournament. Good luck!
wrote on Sure! Just send an invite to my username: mageofmaple. Any pairing of the four 'classic' armies is fine with me.
wrote on Hi Greg! Thanks for your comment. Would you like to play CWDA with me?
wrote on Vitya,
I saw your comment about the power of the CWDA pieces. I agree almost
completely, except that I would bump the FAD up to 4 pawns.
Regards,
Greg
wrote on wrote on Nick, Vitya,
Be careful with the turns numeration that is altered/displaced in two
units; that is, the last move made by White [14.A c1-h6] really corresponds
to the 12th turn.
By other part, the rules allow to do two drops followed if they are done
in turns 10-11, 15-16, 20-21, and so on.
wrote on Hmmm, I hadn't thought of that. I've been playing Scott McGreal with the optional first-step parton transition and the mandatory second-step one. Using a different rule in this game could prove tricky, but it's a nice option, certainly in the spirit of the movement rules I've been using, crud! Remind me every once in a while that the rule is different in the 2 games, lol!
wrote on Parton transitions
Joe,
my initial reaction was that the transition to the Parton cell should mark the termination of the move - a strict (and restrictive?) interpretaion of the Alice rule.
Further thought has brought me round to appreciating the free-er interpretations. In fact I think I would go further, allowing an optional transition at the end of each step, provided at least one transition was made per move.
Cheers
Graeme
wrote on This was a more challenging game of Kamikaze Mortal Shogi than I've
normally played. After Gary's 41st move, I took over a week to move,
because I needed the time to find a move that would not result in quick
checkmate for me. I decided that I could not afford to divide my efforts
between attacking his King and defending my own, and I turned my attention
to taking out his Dragon Horse. My attack on the Dragon Horse was not
perfect. I left room for escape if he drove my King away with some checks,
but he settled for exchanging the Dragon Horse for my Silver General, which
gave me the upper hand again. My second to last move could have been a
blunder but it worked out for me. After I made the move, I realized that
he could have dropped a Pawn right in front of the Lance I dropped. When
he dropped the Kamikaze instead, I had effectively won the game. If he
hadn't resigned, it would have been mate in no more than two moves:
48. K 4h-4i
48... g 3g-3h // Any other move would lead to immediate checkmate
49. K 4i-5i
49... R*6i // Checkmate
wrote on What was done to redo move 33 in this game? Last I knew, the ability to take back moves was broken and I hadn't gotten around to fixing it. Did you follow an email link to the game or go from the Logs page?
wrote on If you will have such mistakes you can edit your move. ;)
wrote on Yes it was a mistake :), I was planning to play 19.. bxe3 20. Pxe3 20.. q-h6 and possibly wining back a pawn. But mistakenly I played the queen move before the bishop move.
wrote on Thanks! :) But why you to me have given the chance to take away bishop: 19. WA e3:c5? It was mistake?
wrote on In this game, I sacrificed a Knight to get both of my opponent's center Pawns. It worked out. Although he remained ahead materially, I was able to place a Knight in the center that would support a Pawn attack on the King. Since the King was surrounded by pieces that couldn't defend it well, all it could do was flee. Checking it with the Elephant was then sufficient for checkmate.
wrote on vitya, i sent you an email regarding the tournament you wanted to be in.
please check it and send me a reply. thanks.
-andrew hippo
wrote on Fergus, is there any way to check the time that was available for Charles from my last move. I was unaware that Charles was running out of time, and I strongly suspect he was, too.
wrote on The move 21. c6-e4 was legal, but there was a bug. Here is what the problem was. The code for checking whether the Queen was moving through check was checking for attacks on empty spaces instead of Queen-occupied spaces. This led to incorrect values for divergent pieces, in this case the Anglican Bishop whose non-capturing orthogonal move reached one of the spaces the Queen's move would pass over. I corrected this by moving the Queen to each step in her move before checking whether it is attacked. With the Queen on the space before determining whether any piece attacks it, I get correct values from divergent pieces. This same bug could have caused the Prince Consort to stop legal Queen moves from a distance, as David Paulowich surmised was happening, though in the case he mentioned, the move was still illegal for another reason.
wrote on Thanks, good luck to you too!
wrote on The problem was that a couple set files pointed to images at chessvariants.com instead of chessvariants.org, and the chessvariants.com domain appears to be in transition from the old site to the new site right now. I changed them to point to chessvariants.org.
wrote on I'll go along with whatever resolution you and Vitya agree to. My recommendation is to let me change the time controls so you can continue your game.
wrote on Has something happened to the Alfaerie: Grand Shatranj image set? No pictures this morning in this game - ditto some Grand/Great Shatranj games I looked at.
wrote on I am going to delete this game if the issue with the game being marked as won by my opponent (when he had a lost position) is not resolved.
Thank you.
wrote on Judging by the values in your log file, you set up overly strict time controls for this game. The spare time was only two days, the grace time one day, and players got a bonus of 1 hour for moving within an hour. Time controls need to be more lenient than this.
wrote on The reason 30. Q f5-d7 was rejected is that it would have crossed over a space protected by the black Dragon at a4. The Prince Consort does not capture long-distance as a Queen and was not covering any spaces the Queen would have passed over. I think 21. c6-e4 should be legal, but I'll have to wait until the move is finished before I debug it. Note it's possible that the bug is already gone. I rewrote this preset between two of my own games, and the bug preventing this move might have been in either the old version or in a buggy transitional version. But I'll check it out after the move is finished.
wrote on Pawns move one square at a time. They can and must promote to any piece of the same color from the initial setup (for example, a player can have 15 Rooks on the board). Victory conditions are the same as in Shatranj Kamil X: checkmate and most stalemates.
wrote on I notice that Q f5-d7 crossed a square (e6) that the Black King could move to. Perhaps the program forgot that the Black King cannot capture on that square.
But I have no idea at all why 21. c6-e4 was rejected.
wrote on How come this game is marked as one where my opponent won?
wrote on Done. Now let's end this game honorably.
wrote on And now for move 30 it won't let me go from f5 to d7? There's got to be a bug - there aren't any pieces that would threaten her.
wrote on Okay, I reverted the log, Sam. It looks like you need to replay your move.
wrote on Yes, I think that would be fair. I don't think it's fair for me to declare this a victory unless my opponent resigns, runs out of time, or I checkmate him.
wrote on I can revert the log to the backup file if either of you want to finish this game. I have since corrected for the time lost while the server was down.
wrote on OK, I feel it's fair to say I won this game. While the timeout did happen while the server was down
- My opponent had not made a move for over two days when the server went down
- The position is lost for black
wrote on It's a lot harder to get used to the basic moves. The knight's starting position seems generally to be quite hazardous.
wrote on Each player has three colorbound pieces, which cover the entire board with no overlapping. This game design requires the White Elephants to start on ranks one and two, in order to place them on squares of opposite color from the White Ferz. If, on the other hand, the game started with Elephants on the first and tenth ranks, then the fifth rank would be dominated by White Elephants and the sixth rank by Black Elephants. That initial setup might make it more difficult for the players to advance their pawns into enemy territory - and result in more drawn games.
wrote on Does anybody know why I can't make my move 21 be c6-e4? Going diagonally down I shouldn't be in check ever.
wrote on Uh-oh! The *workers* step 1; the warriors don't. Lol! Oops. Rats! ;-)
wrote on I meant a Nurse move with that comment on turn 15. I don't know why I was
thinking Drone. I guess I got a little confuse with the piece set.
Maybe I should try the new one. ;-)
wrote on It appears I stumbled into checkmate on my last move. I plan to update this preset to spot check, checkmate and stalemate.
wrote on The preset had a bug. I was using the array operator on what was already an array, which created 2d arrays where 1d arrays were expected. I fixed the bug and fixed your log so that your game can continue.
wrote on I spent quite a while trying to figure out how that was checkmate.
wrote on I think the preset's broke. ;-)
wrote on Thank you Antoine. It seems so simple when properly explained!
wrote on When I made this move on turn 6, I received the following at the top of the
verification screen:
Warning: Illegal offset type in
/home/chessva/public_html/play/pbm/polish.php on line 247
Warning: Illegal offset type in
/home/chessva/public_html/play/pbm/polish.php on line 165
Warning: Illegal offset type in
/home/chessva/public_html/play/pbm/polish.php on line 247
Warning: Illegal offset type in
/home/chessva/public_html/play/pbm/polish.php on line 247
wrote on Finally noticed this comment section. Just didn't get that far down the
page. 'Til now.
-------------------------------------
It's all about defense and sacrifice.
wrote on Larry, you should know I love gambits in Xiang Qi.
wrote on You're already in check. You cannot fend off check with check, since your opponent would capture your King before you capture his.
wrote on I can move a long-leaper to threaten the opposing king (b8-b5), which should force my opponent to move his king, not allowing him to move the coordinator in for
wrote on Graeme, is this move legal: 'rm7-yb7;ye7-yd7;yc7-' ?
wrote on oops. my opening move should obviously be j1-k1. you can fix it and make your move if you see this.
wrote on If someone can delete this game, that would be good. I accidentally put myself against Graeme in this game and not Charles.
wrote on Well done, Vitya. You played a very strong game, making a terrific comeback after my earlier material gains. It was a pleasure to play against such a good opponent.
wrote on Is it true that the Withdrawer can only kill when withdrawing in an orthogonal direction?
wrote on Aw nuts - you're right! Nevermind then - except it did make such a nice excuse for why I lost :)
wrote on If you are referring to 15... c7-c4 in your previous game, it was a Pawn which captured the Withdrawer. The Chameleon was already in place.
wrote on Scott and Chad, sorry to be breaking in on your game comments like this.
Fergus, the ability of game courier to accept close to 50 moves is
something a few designers are beginning to use. If you are going to
'fix' that, please use an adjustable parameter with an upper boundary as
high as possible. Thank you.
wrote on The first bug needs to be fixed by Antoine Fourriere, who programmed the rule enforcement. The second bug is a systemic bug from Game Courier having no general means of restricting the number of move primitives a player may enter for a move. I have plans for fixing this but need to find the time to get to it.
wrote on Hey, Fergus, I think we've found two bugs: 1-the chameleon will 'pinch' any piece when it's only supposed to pinch a pawn, 2-it's possible to commit suicide for an immobilized piece and still move (using the notation @-d2;g2-f2 )
wrote on Oh please. You had me at move three. A few killer mistakes at the beginning make a big difference.
wrote on Ouch. So much for that game I guess. :(
wrote on Since I can no longer add a comment to your Shogi game, I will do it here. You guys were using invalid notation in your Shogi game. The spaces that begin with an exclamation mark should not be mentioned in the notation you enter for moves. When you wish to drop a piece, enter the piece label, an asterisk, and its destination. For example: B*5f. Also, it is illegal to drop a piece and move a piece on the same turn. You must use your turn to do only one or the other. Anyway, I have now updated Game Courier to disallow moves made explicitly to or from spaces whose coordinate begins with an exclamation mark. This has interrupted your Shogi game with an illegal move message. You can no longer play your Shogi game, but please feel free to start another one.
wrote on This preset enforces rules and automates drops and captures, yet you are entering moves in this game as though it does not do all this. First of all, it is illegal for a drop move to capture a piece. The problem is that the preset is not programmed to screen out extra moves. You should be entering no more than two move operations per move, and usually just one. The second is an occasional promotion.
wrote on I've found no better place to remind Jose Carillo that he still has two games with me running...
wrote on Gentlemen, I know little about shogi, but I do know this. You must, in your turn, move one piece without dropping a piece, or drop one piece without moving any piece. The original shogi rules do not allow moving a piece you have dropped this turn. On the other hand, it should speed the game up... ;-)
wrote on Yeah, I noticed that too.
wrote on Question... If you capture a piece on the same turn that you drop a piece, the captured piece does not come to your 'corral' - it just disappears. Is that intended behavior?
wrote on Armin, Oops! My mistake- this preset IS correct.
wrote on Promotion is immediate, after making a normal move that ends (or begins) in the promotion zone. But piece drops do not count as normal moves. Click on the [Rules] button for more details.
wrote on Your move, George
wrote on I think the forward movement is the point. This is a game of attack (and
movement within the enemy zone, but not retreat). I noticed the pieces
even look forward facing.
My impression of the rules was that you have to choose to promote the
pieces (it takes a turn), and if you reach the final rank you can't move
them until you promote them. Of course I was mistaken about some of
Ultima's rules too.
wrote on wow. lots of forward movement available, but not many go backwards. Do you know - when it says 'may promote when enters the promotion area' does that mean if you choose not to promote you must either exit and enter again or move to the final ranks to promote (i.e. moving around won't let you promote after that first decision)?
wrote on 15... c7-c4 was a capture by a Pawn move, not by a Chameleon move. So it is legal.
wrote on Interesting variant. I feel inclined to develop to the edges, as you seem to get more power that way. It's hard to do anything in the middle.
wrote on Gosh Chad, you've got me. Hurry and finish it off painlessly.
wrote on Ah - you're right. I went back and looked and it did act as a pawn and that does seem like a bug. I guess that's maybe three we've found so far.
wrote on I know what you're saying, but the chameleon withdrew tangent to the withdrawer. It's supposed to only work when it withdraws directly away. Poor thing. I promised her I would keep her protected, and now this happens. I think it's a bug.
wrote on Sorry - didn't see the comments. The chameleon became a withdrawer
and...well... withdrew.
wrote on Hey! How did he just eat my withdrawer? Did that chameleon just become a pawn? That's not fair.
wrote on This is a family site. Genteel trash talk is fine.
:-)
wrote on Well apparently this works - I don't know if they'll censor us if we trash talk though. Sometimes that's half the fun.
wrote on Hey - I'm seeing whether it's possible to add comments here.
wrote on Pawn = 100, Ferz = 175, (ordinary) Elephant = 175, Knight = 300, War Elephant = 350 are my revised piece values in this game. Why bump the colorbound pieces up 25 points? The Ferz is a handy little piece, worth a solid 150 points on a 10x10 board, plus a 25 point bonus for promoting (just like the Pawn). While the Alibaba may be worth not much more than 200 points, the Elephant should be nearly as valuable in the endgame, when there are few pieces on the board. Ralph Betza once estimated the combined Alfilrider and Dabbabahrider piece as worth no more than a Knight on an 8x8 board. Instead of generating pages of pseudomathematics here, I will just list some reasons for liking these pieces:
the War Elephant can force a stalemate victory against a lone King,
while King and (ordinary) Elephant can actually draw against five War Elephants, provided they all travel on squares of the opposite color to the Elephant.
wrote on I've been curious about piece values in this game. Clearly, the chief is
the strongest piece in this whole series of games; the rookish in Overlord
is the only current piece that comes close to the chief's power as a
piece.
The guard is an interesting piece here; it is the only non-'royal' piece
that attacks its 8 neighboring squares, and thus can block the movement of
the enemy chiefs. But it's the slowest piece, slower than any other piece
including the royal piece.
This plays into the results of this game. A really even game between 2
players has a very good chance to end in a draw, like here, where we
traded 44 pieces, losing 22 each, and leaving just 10 of the original 32
per side.
It is not clear what is minimum sufficient advantage to force a win, and I
suspect it changes as the gameboards get bigger.
wrote on Knight = 300, Guard = 300, Shaman = 360, Hero = 450 are my latest estimates for this 16x12 board. I am giving the three-steppers lower values than in Opulent Lemurian Shatranj, as I feel that the much larger board and multiple moves per turn cause a 'leveling out' of the piece values. The Chieftain (giving the player an extra move) is worth at least two Heroes.
wrote on 
This movement diagram uses hollow squares for the War Machine and X's for the War Elephant (not used in this variant). For an ASCII diagram of Rose moves on a 16x16 board, see the Rose Chess Preset.
wrote on Sam, I don't know how players manage to accept games without giving their names - but it may not be possible for your opponent to make any further moves. After all, what password does one enter for 'nobody'?
Regarding time limits, I have been trying to convert Joe Joyce to a '411' system, allowing two weeks per move: [Timed Game?] checked [Spare Time:] 4 weeks [Grace Time:] 1 week [Extra Time:] 1 week
wrote on I don't know what happened to this player, but unless I see a clear
interest in continuing this game, I will delete it in the next few days (I
understand I gave a one-month per-move time limit; however not making a
move after the first move is pushing things)
wrote on Thanks for the game Carlos. I used my Omega Chess set to analyse these complicated positions. After your latest move (in time trouble), it looks like I can win a Rook with:
... Rook f4-f2 check!
wrote on oops... you would have won anyway, i think. good game.
wrote on Thank you for the congratulations, David. I seem to have picked a good time to have finally won a game against you. This officially ends CV Tournament #3 - maybe I should tell carlos.
wrote on This forgotten game has Betza compounds (W + D) and (F + A).
wrote on Officially now it is free castling with King required to move 2+, but not all the way to corner, and no Queen promotion. However, the other two alternatives are okay if both sides agree. That is, Queen promotion only by agreement beforehand. And King one-step-castling-option only if both sides agree beforehand (or along the way).
wrote on I fixed the link on the preset so you can now view the rules.
I fail to see how you can judge a game as being unfair due to this obvious
oversight in making the preset.
wrote on This is pathetically unfair game. I defy anyone to click through the Rules and tell what the Pawns with two Triangle caps are, as well as other pieces.
wrote on We must assume that a tournament game of Shatranj or Modern Shatranj will be following the given rules, not footnotes. I have argued in the past that any variant rules worth playing should have their own pages on this site.
wrote on George, you don't show up on my list of members.
Go here: http://chessvariants.wikidot.com/system:join
and try to join. Email me with any any error messages.
Joe
wrote on This is either a stalemate win for black, or a 1-move checkmate for black,
depending on which rule is used. I quote from the rules:
'Stalemate counts as a win.**
...
**Pritchard cites a rule variation that is not mentioned by all authors: A
stalemated King may be transposed with one of its other pieces, as long as
this does not result in check.'
If the transposition is allowed, K-h5 swaps with P-h4, then r-h8 mate.
wrote on Jeju (or Joyce), you suggested tournament players join the Wiki. I thought I did mid-April, but my name does not appear there yet, although trying to re-join it reads, ''user with this email already exist.'' Where did mine go?
wrote on This game ain't bad, but, in my humble opinion, Toulousian Chess is his best!
wrote on Hi Carlos. The invitation is accepted for Coherent Chess, but does not allow play. There was a message it is ''not initialized.'' I will try again later. You may have to make another invitation to start the play.
wrote on I will add here, if people don't like the rooks being threatened by the Bishops, then one can play this with the rooks dropped back one row. Only the Knight's pawns are threatened, and not the Rooks.
wrote on The way more advanced players can play Near Chess in other ways are one of
these ways:
1. Play it against Normal Chess in Near vs Normal.
2. Use a 960 shuffle, or alternate turn drop of pieces into the first or
second row.
3. Introduction of Capablanca and other fantasy pieces.
Playing it on 8x10 board is cool for people who want to play a larger
board variant. Such a board is hard to come by for most people though.
It also isn't Near Chess. If someone has a better name for it, please
come up with it. Maybe Expanded FIDE perhaps. I also can't vouch for
the amount of draws that would occur in Expanded FIDE, but I know the
number of draws in Near Chess is greatly reduced.
I will stand on this game being a good intro game for newer players.
wrote on When I say 'easier to learn for beginners' this doesn't mean it is not
meant to lack depth, just that it has less rules and is simplier to get
started. It is easier to learn than chess as the opening is more
restrained to it, and the pawns are better defended. By dropping En
Passant, and Castling, that streamlines it even more.
Of course, there is Simplified Chess, which happens to eliminate rows in
the back. My feel is that waters down Near Chess, but still has its
place.
wrote on wrote on WARNING: the pieces are not set up correctly - also the second and fourth levels have the wrong colored squares. You can use my Raumschach Revised preset - eventually an editor will add a link to it on the game information page.
wrote on At last! The preset is correct. Thank you Mr. David Paulowich!
wrote on 'drawn' is the correct word to use
wrote on Three years ago I posted Piececlopedia comments about the Cavalier and the Duke, mentioning some gryphon/aanca type pieces used by Adrian King and Mark Hedden. More recently, Gary K. Gifford has posted a 12 by 12 variant called Gryphon Aanca Chess. My own Rose Chess XII has Spotted Gryphons, limiting the number of other pieces in order to provide more 'breathing room' on the board.
Regarding Mark's comment below, the Boyscout / Crooked Bishop has been re-invented at least once. Dababbah riders are rarely seen, but the Dragon in Ca
wrote on Here is that game I've been working on- of course, a la Betza. It has no real name, save 'Medieval War Chess,' which I dislike. The archers, and the cannons' 'kill' ranges are symbolized, and doubled by their proximity to the 'battlements' directly in front of them. They are considered to be on top of them. The 'shooters,' themselves, cannot capture by displacement. The battlements can only move one square ahead, but may capture on that move. The cannon may only shoot straight ahead, up to three squares, OR up to six, if directly behind, orthogonally, a battlement. The Archers may only shoot up to two squares, only diagonally, OR up to four, if diagonally adjacent to a battlement. Neither 'shooters' may capture a piece by displacement. I feel that this game might provide some interesting dilemmas for either players as to whether they should sacrifice, possibly, more powerful pieces for either shooters, or the battlements which double their firing range, or simply avoid their firing ranges and attack with the strong pieces. This is the preset here. I know you aren't too fond of the 16x16 games, but I think this one would not take 4 years to finish, and you might just enjoy it!
wrote on Joe, based on the demo game, Fergus vs Fergus, the answer is yes. He did it a few times in that game.
wrote on Sorry, guys, yet another rules question:
The rules on moving squares state:
'it is illegal to move a space to any orthogonally isolated location,
that is to any location where it will not share a side with another
space'
This is my question: can I move a square so that it follows that rule, but
leaves another square only diagonally connected to the board?
I have a rook and bishop, adjacent to each other, sticking out of the left
side of my position. I can slide a pawn and square sideways in front of the
bishop, which gives me 3 squares in a row, bishop in the middle, off the
left side of my board. Could I then slide the bishop and its square back
into the original board field, leaving the pawn and square only diagonally
attached?
I believe the answer is 'Yes'. But the rules do not stipulate, and I've
been wrong before. Is there anyone who knows for sure?
wrote on The Piececlopedia has a multicolor Rose movement diagram. Note that the (half-)rose in this game makes at most four hops. On a large board, the rose [O] can still move to 32 squares [x]: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 . . . . . . . . x . . . . . . . 14 . . . . . . x . . . x . . . . . 13 . . . . x . . . x . . . x . . . 12 . . . . . x . . . . . x . . . . 11 . . . x . . . x . x . . . x . . 10 . . . . . . x . . . x . . . . . 9 . . x . x . . . O . . . x . x . 8 . . . . . . x . . . x . . . . . 7 . . . x . . . x . x . . . x . . 6 . . . . . x . . . . . x . . . . 5 . . . . x . . . x . . . x . . . 4 . . . . . . x . . . x . . . . . 3 . . . . . . . . x . . . . . . . 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p
wrote on Thank you for having a look at my chess thing. The newest link, below, is the most recent version of it, and I think it's the best one thus far. I do think, though, that it just might be too complex, but won't, of course, really know until it's been played (which is where you might be of service! )***
If I may, I'd like to give you a brief description of it's rules. I'll start with piece movement. The bishop-like icons on a1, p1, a16, and p16 are crooked bishop/wazir hybrids a la Ralph Betza. Next, at b1, o1, b16, and o16, are dababbah riders, followed, at c1, n1, c16, and n16, by crooked rooks-- again, a Betza invention, as you probably know. Fourth in, at c1, m1, d16, and m16, are standard nightriders. The odd horses at e1, l1, e16, and l16, with the 'actualized potential' lines surrounding them (from the game of that name) are meant to represent either Knight/Camel/Zebra hybrids, that is, 2+1; 3+1; and 3+2 jumpers, or, a simpler combination of two of the three animals-- NC, NZ, or CZ. I like the NCZ piece, but I fear that TWO of them might make for an overly complicated game. My experience with just one such piece can complicate a game almost like no other, in my opinion (as it can in Cazaux's 14x14 game Gigachess). Next, at f1 and k16 are simplified versions of your Duke from Rennchess (an 'aancha.' ((Sp.?)), I believe). They, unlike the Duke in Rennchess, may not attack via two routes, and the piece (without a name, so far) may also stop, and capture, after making only it's ortho. move. The pieces at g1 through j1, and g16 through j16 move exactly as you would expect, and the two pieces (technically gryphons, really, though nameless, again, at this point, in this game) at k1 and f16 are, again, just simplified versions of your Cavalier, but share the same movement and capture simplifications of my Duke-like piece. The three-headed pawns are corporals, and capture like a FIDE pawn, but may also make a non-capturing move one square diagonally forward (borrowed from Jean-Louis Cazaux's various games, many of which I like quite a bit!). The pawns beside the corporals are just plain, old pawns, and, in front of the K and Q, are your Guards, and move exactly as such. I thought that the 2nd and 15th rank pawns should be allowed to make a 4 to 5 square move if they've not yet moved, though I've not yet decided. Finally, pawn-wise, the shogi pawns on the 5th and 12th ranks move, and capture exactly as they would in shogi; they move one space ahead, and capture one space ahead. Why they are where they are should become more clear in a moment.***
The pieces on the 3rd and 14th ranks, specifically the cannons and the archers, represent my biggest question mark about this game (the ferz-like icons are simply ferz which can execute and capture with a one square ortho. step. or, a two, or three square ortho. leap). Ideally, I'd like the cannons and archers to be able to capture opponents pieces from afar, meaning, I'd like them to be able to 'shoot' enemy pieces without, themselves, moving, though they, them selves may move one square, king-like. Additionally, I've placed 'battlements,'-- your Castle piece icon, though these can only move one square at a time, and only straight ahead, directly in front of these 'shooting pieces,' with the idea that the configuration of these two types of pieces-- the cannons and the archers, and the battlements directly in front of them, might symbolize the 'shooters' positioning ON TOP of the battlements, and would then, thus, double thier effective 'kill' range. I think this aspect of this game sounds really cool, yet, my speculations are in no way carved in stone, either. Honestly, I'm not certain these rules would really work. My fear is that these rules might present too much of a limiting factor with regard to piece development. As a means of compromise, I've placed the shogi pawns in front of the battlements to slow their advance, as I felt that both the battlements, and the shooting pieces might advance TOO quickly, thus threatening a rather silly premature mate.***
Yet another issue: I have not resolved how the double horse icons-'cavalries'-should move. I'd like them to be able to make one or TWO knight moves in ANY direction- like, say, from k4 to l6, then to j7, and be blocked only on their 'landing' squares. As cool as the idea seems to me, again, I fear that allowing them to move as such might add more chaos-inducing, playability-diminishing complexity to this already large game. Play testing is in order.***
My God, I've written you another novella!. I'm pretty sure that you now have the basic gist of this (possibly ridiculous) game. Here is it's link:clicky here!
wrote on Eric, here is the preset for the 16x16 game on which I've been working. It is a loose extrapolation of Ralph Betza's Chess on a Really Big Board, and employs a couple of similar pieces-one of which, the Crooked Rook, he invented, and another, the CBW, which is an enhanced version of Betza's Crooked Bishop! I do feel that, as a whole, the game is distinct enough to justify calling it a new game, rather than simply a variation of Betza's game, especially in light of some of the unique properties of it's pieces and rules. That being said, and having never 'invented' a game before, I expect nothing less than brutal honesty in your take on it's potential (or, lack there of). If it happens to intrigue you, I'll explain my tentative rules for it, as several of the pieces do not move as their icons would normally indicate, and the game has a few unorthodox rules. Should it progress to the point of requiring a set of written rules, maybe you could show me how to post them...? Ultimately, this game is definitely a chess game, albeit a large one with heavy firepower, and is in no way an attempt to fundamentally change chess itself. I think it has an awfully purdy board, as well!:) Matt's Little Big Experiment
wrote on I'm sorry that I've yet to make a set of rules for this preset, but, lately, I've been suffering from a baffling condition characterized by inertia and extreme overwork! I'll 'get with' Eric Greenwood soon and create them!
wrote on wrote on ignore this...
wrote on ...ignore this, as well...
wrote on wrote on wrote on Either player can delete any game here at any time. These (unplayed) games remind me of several Fischer Random Chess games, from years ago, which were abandoned when the players (presumably) did not like the setup they saw.
wrote on I found out, thanks to help from Joe Joyce, that one can not place an active URL in the comments section of a game, only in this here kibitzin' box. Here are links to four versions: one featuring a Templar knight sheild as the Courier, one with the elephant icon from Courier chess #5, one with two Guards placed where the Foxes would be in the original Rennchess; and (yet!) another placed on a 12x12 board: Rennchess II with Templar shields as Couriers; Rennchess II with elephants as Couriers; Rennchess II with Guards; and Rennchess on a 12x12 board
wrote on thanks guys, managed it the unconventional way
wrote on Musta been a tough night - of course it's h8, not g8 - my apologies - am resending last move if you wish to castle correctly. Joe
wrote on [Userid:] joejoyce [Enter your move] i1-i1; j1-h1 works fine when I try it. I think that you have to enter both piece moves to castle. Note: O-O-O would take your King to the c-file.
wrote on ...but g8 is occupied. On this side of the board is g8 my rook's
destination when castling? I was hoping it was h8...
wrote on Hey je ju; you should be able to castle just by moving the rook: j8-g8.
wrote on Confused by this: the omega-castling (O-O, White's right side): like in
FRC the king will be placed one row distant from the border (here i-file)
and the rook at the next inner neighboured square...do you think I can
castle by leaving the king where it is and moving j8 rook to h8?
(the preset won't let me...)
Or would my king go to the 3rd rank and thus be in check?
Do I have any castling options at the current moment?
wrote on My apologies for the illegal move, Michael. Heh, unfortunately, while I was
expecting your voidrider move a couple turns ago, the only defense I had
was that sideways pawn move. I believe you have just shot my battleplan to
little, tiny pieces. Wanna talk about neutrinos? ;-) Anyway, it may take me
a while to reply...
[AaaarrrgghhhHHhhHHhhh!]
wrote on Luis,
Para esta posici
wrote on Hey, I just made an illegal move and I am sorry. Could you undo it?
wrote on I must apologize here for announcing checkmate... it is in Fide chess but here we actually have one more move for Black and then I (as White) will win by playing Q x K which cannot be prevented. In Dimension X a King must actually be captured... I temporarily overlooked that detail.
wrote on strictly speaking it isn't one of the tabiyaat.
The way we played, each setting up the pieces on his half of the board, so
to speak, before the actual battle started, reminded me of the tabiyaat.
The wikipedia entry on shatranj has a couple of them. It's a small and
inadequate sample. Murray has more, compiled from a few sources.
wrote on Los particulares del Preset de Ajedrez Moderno:
Para entrar una jugada en Chess variants se necesita entrar la movida por
sus coordenadas.
Ejemplos: b1-c3, f8-f6, etc.
No hace falta utilizar la inicial de la pieza en la mayor
wrote on Why will no one play this here game with me?
wrote on Why will no one play this here game with me?
wrote on A very pretty opening; is it a classic shatranj opening? Is there a good spot for finding shatranj openings on the internet [in English only, unfortunately... yeah, typical American :( ]
wrote on Preset Particulars:
In Chess Courrier the Minister (Bishop & Knight) is called the Archbishop,
and uses the initial A for the name of the piece:
White Minister=A
Black Minister=a
==
White's pieces are in Capital letters
(K=King,Q=Queen,A=Minister,R=Rook,B=Bishop,N=Knight,P=Pawn)
Black's pieces are in lower case letters
(k=King,q=Queen,a=Minister,r=Rook,b=Bishop,n=Knight,p=Pawn)
==
Castling:
a-castling:
White: K-c1;R-d1;-e1;-a1
Black: k-c9;r-d9;-e9;-a9
i-castling:
White: K-g1;R-f1;-e1;-i1
Black: k-g9;r-f9;-e9;-i9
==
Bishop-Castling:
c-Bishop castling with Knight:
White: B-b1;N-c1
Black: b-b9;n-c9
c-Bishop castling:
White (with Minister): B-d1;A-c1
Black (with Queen) : b-d9;q-c9
g-Bishop castling with Knight:
White: B-h1;N-g1
Black: b-h9;n-g9
g-Bishop castling:
White (with Queen) : B-f1;Q-g1
Black (with Minister): b-f9;a-g9
==
en passant:
Sample 1: White's e6-Pawn takes Black's d-Pawn ([after Black's
...d8-d6] equivalent e6xd7 e.p.)
-e6;P-d7;-d6
Sample 2: Black's g4-Pawn takes White's h-Pawn ([after White's h2-h4]
equivalent ...g4xh3 e.p.)
-g4;p-h3;-h4
==
Promotions:
Sample 1: White's Pawn at c8 moves to c9 and promotes to a Queen
[c8-c9=Q]
P c8-c9;Q-c9
Sample 2: Black's Pawn at g2 takes at h1 and promotes to a Minister
(Archbishop) [hxg1=a]
p g2-h1;a-h1
wrote on Stephen,
Before we go to far, I need you to know (as it is not clear from the
instructions posted on CV right now), that the Bishop can actually
'castle' with either the knight or the queen/minister next to it, as
long as neither piece has moved.
It is optional to do the Bishop-castling (and it can only be done with one
of the Bishops, but not both). This is the move that converts one of the
Bishops from the black squares to the white squares.
I'm working on building the preset to recognize the special rules of
Modern Chess, but for the time being, we are playing the first trial game
of the preset.
Probably the first game ever of Modern Chess played in the internet.
Thanks for trying the variation (and making history).
wrote on Joe does have an extra piece, which he can keep, if I correctly remember how a cannon double-pin works. EDIT: Somehow I failed to see ExN check!
wrote on Sent move 14... d6-b8 and received the following message:
Array ( [0] => 1200671435 [1] => 1200757191 [2] => 1200839692 [3] => 1200919765 [4] => 1200947176 [5] => 1201016841 [6] => 1201033856 [7] => 1201099773 [8] => 1201101852 [9] => 1201285016 [10] => 1201352171 [11] => 1201365155 [12] => 1201395912 [13] => 1201614264 [14] => 1201649342 [15] => 1201712285 [16] => 1201735914 [17] => 1201791224 [18] => 1201871003 [19] => 1201880662 [20] => 1201883291 [21] => 1202205298 [22] => 1202246702 [23] => 1202256806 [24] => 1202300831 [25] => 1202365990 [26] => 1202428233 [27] => 1202491577 [28] => 1202564284 [29] => 1202564285 ) 30
1202564285 - 1202564284
Is 1 > 86400 + 1915200, which is 2001600.
It is not your turn to move. Please wait for your opponent to move.
wrote on Yes, darn it, it was a time-out. I've picked up far too many wins that way. On the other hand, I've had games that didn't have time limits where my opponent stopped moving, often enough in a lost or losing position, so I favor time losses. Glad I decided to go for the win - tried a risky move sequence with the cannon instead of trading it for a knight, heading into a drawn position, and asking for the draw. But somehow, I think you're right, and don't think Adrian was paralyzed by the brilliance of my last moves, lol! I suspect he was distracted by outside forces... ;-) [Go, GIANTS!] [and I'm a Jets fan] Anyway, I believe he made a move a little while ago in another game, Janus, so he's still playing.
wrote on what am i missing here? it doesn't look like joe is in a winning position
to me.
was this a timeout?
wrote on  | The LionThe Lion is a piece invented by Ralph Betza, which he called a Half-Duck. It has been used recently with the name 'Lion' in games by David Paulowich. This piece may leap either 2 or 3 squares horizontally or vertically, or may step a single space digonally. This piece stays on squares of the same color except when it makes the somewhat awkward (0, 3) leap. |
The ScoutThe scout may step one square horizontally or vertically, or leap exactly three squares horizontally or vertically. Also, a Scout that has not moved yet this game has the added ability to move (once) like a Knight. Like the Knight, it is forced to change the color of the square it occupies with each move. |  |
Piece diagrams and descriptions taken from Greg Strong's Hubbub. The Lion is used in Unicorn Great Chess. The 'War Machine' in Rose Chess XII moves like a Scout, but without 'the added ability to move (once) like a Knight'.
wrote on Now that I got that out of my system, thanks for the game. I think we went a little too defensive, though... ;-)
wrote on Black has about a 2.5 point advantage, but I can't see it as sufficient to
[allow me to] force a win, or even force the game to a decisive point. Both
sides positions are defense-oriented. White has no real attack against
Black, and Black is only capable of picking up a pawn but leaving a
trashed position at the cost of dropping all in-hand pieces while leaving
white with 1 or 2 in hand. Any serious attack black mounts can be met by a
greater counter-attack, given current board geometry and the in-hand pieces
of both sides. This is also true of White. As far as I can see, we've
developed trench warfare on the chessboard here. Playing defensively for
another 30 turns of inconclusive chess while hoping the other guy makes an
exploitable blunder, and then agreeing to a draw, doesn't sound that
exciting.
So, much as I hate to do it, I'll accept your draw offer, Todor. After
all, you might be the one to get the break - heh, you missed one chance to
either mate me or at least get the advantage in pieces. About the time I
dropped the rook on my back rank, you had an opportunity to drop all your
pieces into my back ranks for a devastating attack... I think. That's why
I played defensively then, anyhow. ;-)
wrote on The Notes section on my Unicorn Great Chess page has a link to the preset: 'Computer Play: Fergus Duniho was kind enough to playtest this game with me in 2001 and create a PBM preset here.'
Feel free to send an invitation with 'david_64' listed as the opponent. I will start the game some time in the next two weeks.
wrote on Hey Adrian, regarding your last in-game comment, if I trade cannon for knight, we draw, because that leaves our forces perfectly even and balanced across the board: easy to defend, tough to attack.
wrote on I have also had problems keeping that box unchecked. There is another way around this problem.
Shatranj Kamil X has promotion to a piece that is not in the initial setup. DO NOT CLICK ON THE GAME COURIER PRESET ON THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE! My original game preset, which has not yet been attached to this page, places extra pieces in the center of the board and then deletes them before the first move is made. So all of the pieces used in my game will show up in the pieces list. Clicking 'Edit this preset' to see [Pre-Game: @-e5; @-f5 ], reveals how I remove the extra pieces from e5 and f5.
wrote on )
wrote on 16... e7-d6 // kxg // well, no major blunders in this game so far... though i // think i may have been a little hasty with CxN 17. d1-e2 //KxC Well, it certainly has reduced some of the tension. // Now we get to find out if a cannon and knight are // equivalent. Enjoy.
Ralph Betza would say that the practical value of a piece is determined by the hand that holds it. This is the first such duel I have seen in a Mir Chess game. I do recall a wild position 28 moves into my game with Gary Gifford, which left me with Cannon and Elephant vs. Knight. This substantial material advantage (two pieces for the Knight) allowed me to dominate the board deep into the endgame.
http://play.chessvariants.org/pbm/play.php?game=Mir+Chess+32&log=david_64-penswift-2006-4-133
wrote on Black's moves 6,14,15 in this game have the effect of castling his King. This prompted me to looks up some Shogi references:
http://www.delorie.com/gnu/docs/gnushogi/gnushogi_18.html
There is no special castling move in shogi. The term 'castle' is used in shogi to denote a defensive formation consisting of (usually) three generals which protect the king. There are many such castles (about 40 or so have names).
wrote on Thanks. It was an exciting game. And the Templar game itself is one of my favorites. An excellent game.
wrote on Well played Gary--Always like to see a mate with Templars involved!
wrote on Nice job, Gary; congratulations! You outplayed me here; maybe I'll get ya next time. Enjoy! Joe
wrote on sorry, i messed up the time controls. don't start this game.
wrote on Jeremy, Jejujeju here. Notice that you haven't made any chess moves for awhile now. Hope things are ok. The clock is ticking on this one, you're down to about 3 days...hope you're able to move before getting timed out.
wrote on Cool looking game!
wrote on Interesting difference in styles here. [Jeremy, you've been perfecting
that style on me!]
Joe
wrote on Hey, Jeremy, I thought so, too, but...
If you are good with that [a fissioning piece checking*], then I certainly
am. I had no wish to spend a few moves here and there setting up a move
that I then couldn't do because the rules don't allow it.
* You know, the thought occurred to me that if the characteristics of
pieces changed when they fuse or fission, then check could be given by a
piece that was part of a compound that could not give check, or could
allow 2 pieces that by themselves couldn't give check to fuse into
something that could.
You might also have 2 pieces fuse into 2 other pieces, though the
mechanics could prevent it. Hope this paragraph makes some sense...
wrote on Hi, Joe, I think you can give check.
wrote on Here we go again! As I cannot trust my reading of the rules, and this is a
tournament game, I have to ask this question:
Can a piece that has just split away from a compound piece and lands on an
empty square give check, or must it move such that it cannot give check?
For example, in this game, could I split my queen on d8 into a stationary
rook and a bishop that goes to the rook file, on h4, with check?
It's my opponent's turn; I'm sure he will be interested in the answer,
too.
Thank you, whomever, for any help.
wrote on Just a reminder, Uri needs to shift back and repeat move 3, allowing Black to replace his illegal move.
wrote on I played an illegal move.
wrote on I meant to explain that I was shifting back a move, so Black could take back his illegal castling move.
wrote on Thank you, Antoine, David, Abdul-Rahman. I certainly can't look for anything more authoritative than Fergus' description. Case closed. Expected this outcome, but you can't kill a guy for trying, unless, of course, you're a spy, like Nathan Hale, where they can kill you for trying. Chess is much more civilized [right!]; but I do get at least a mutator to play with from this game, if not a full-blown variant, in Fluid Chess. I find dissatisfaction with a game is quite a spur to modest variants, at least.
wrote on When trying to understand the code Fergus wrote for the not-functioning automated preset for his own game, you can read in the Post-move fields
die You may not capture or fuse with a piece on a fission move.;
so, yes, I think it is clear that Joe's move is not allowed, according to Fergus.
There was a contoversy in a GCT#2 Rococo game between Thomas McElmurry and Michael Madsen. Fergus decided that Peter Aronson and David Howe would get the final (and mercifully identical) say.
die You may not capture or fuse with a piece on a fission move.;
so, yes, I think it is clear that Joe's move is not allowed, according to Fergus.
There was a contoversy in a GCT#2 Rococo game between Thomas McElmurry and Michael Madsen. Fergus decided that Peter Aronson and David Howe would get the final (and mercifully identical) say.
wrote on Joe, I think we all agree on what Fergus meant, if not on what he said. Permit me to ramble on for a while here. Suppose a master slides the White Bishop f1-b5 in a Ruy Lopez. According to the strict 'touch-move rules' FIDE passed in the 1930s, that Bishop has touched the squares e2, d3, c4, b5 and Black has the right to pick any one of those four squares and force White to move to that square. Tournament directors had to ignore that particular rule, as many high level players continued to slide their pieces across the board. Since then, players have tended to ignore how the Bishop gets from f1 to b5. And the younger players grew up on: click f1, click b5, click SEND MOVE.
Which raises a tricky question: Are we enforcing 'touch-move rules' in this tournament? To be specific, if I attempt an illegal move, can my opponent demand that I then make a legal move with the same piece?
wrote on Can't hold up the game too much with a question on rules. Guess I'll make
this move anyway. I still don't consider the question resolved, but must
continue playing. Hope I'll get a positive answer before the next move, but
am not expecting any authoritative declarations. I suspect the answer, if
any, won't be positive for me. As I read them, the rules are written to allow
what I suggest. But there is no positive declaration that my idea is allowed,
and what Abdul-Rahman says is quite true, a loose interpretation of the rules
does support the negative viewpoint. Annoying, that I have to do what Fergus
meant, and not what he said. Blast, in a situation like this, we need an
unambiguous authority, and a backup to handle questions the authority may be
asking/involved in somehow. The primary authority here [probably] should be
Carlos, since he's the one continuing the tournament. The backup? Any senior
member of CV, maybe. Antoine would be a very likely choice, but there are
many others, and I'm not trying to stick Antoine with an unasked-for job. I
do think we need to establish a structure to hanndle these sorts of things,
since they seem to come up often enough.
wrote on My understanding is different. You move a piece FROM one square TO the
other. When reading games scores, people say 'Pawn TO King's Four' or
'Knight TO f3'.
I would take 'to' to mean the destination square.
wrote on Black's Pawn launch on move 19 passes over multiple pieces. The White King was launched over 8 empty squares in move 23. A Catapult is not a Cannon. It has taken me a while to wrap my head around this concept.
wrote on Uh, hi, David. I see you got in between Abdul-Rahman's answer and my
reply. You are both very possibly right, but I'm missing it in the rules
- 'it' being a definitive answer to my observation on how components
fission out of a compound. And I will have to write up a brief explanation
of 'Fluid Chess'.
Fluid Chess allows 2 friendly pieces to occupy the same square at any
time, but no more than 2. Pieces may combine and separate, like Fusion,
but may not only leave one combo piece and create another on the same
move, but may move through single friendly pieces. Got a few more
wrinkles, but that's the basic idea.
Hoping to get a more definitive answer, or an authoritative one, and
fearing I'll offer up another dud variant, I remain
Lost in Yonkers
wrote on Hi, Abdul-Rahman! Thank you very much for your answer. However, I would
like to respectfully disagree with you.
Your first and second sentences would make sense together if there was a
requirement to stop in an empty square.
The rules do not say that.
It is merely required that the fissioning piece have an empty square to
move into, which exists in the scenario I proposed.
Clearly, from the empty square rule, a queen couldn't split and add
either component, B or R, to an adjacent knight.
Yet that does not prevent the fissioning piece from travelling farther,
and there is only an ambiguity there, as it says 'to *an* empty square'
[emphasis added].
But the rule also says that the component is just a component, plain and
simple, once it has successfully emerged from the compound. Specifically,
it is a 'simple piece'.
'Simple pieces may combine by moving...' So, unless the fissioning piece
stops on an adjacent empty square [except the knight, which stops on a
non-adjacent empty square], then the rules, as written, do not prohibit
what I proposed, unless I am misunderstanding them.
I will wait a little before moving, to have this resolved first,
hopefully.
wrote on As has just been posted, the rules do not permit Joe's move. Also, I ran a search with [Game Filter:] Fusion* and found an additional game (fragment) for 'Fusion Diamond 41', but that is all.
wrote on 'A compound piece may split into its components by moving one of its
components, under its own powers of movement, to an empty square.'
The empty square requirement excludes captures and fusions, when
separating.
wrote on Question: if I play 2 ... N g8-f6, can I then play 3 ... B d8-f6?
This move takes the B from the queen, a BR combo, and slides it two
squares to merge with the knight in a BN combo. So, in 1 turn, can you
legally deconstruct a queen and construct a paladin?
I see no prohibition in the rules.
I also cannot pull up any games to look at; when I try, all that shows are
the 3 versions of this game. I assume this game must have been played
before. If so, possibly error messages Jeremy got when he tried to get to
the first 2 to move, and the disappearance [?] of other games are related?
wrote on King can create itself a triangle of squares to which it can move repetitively. Of course, to force the king to trek more widely, one can add longer prohibition against returning to the same square.
wrote on Thanks, Antoine. :-)
wrote on Sorry, my mistake. I have now replaced the faulty
def halfling onboard where #1 + - file #1 file #0 cond > file #1 file #0
-1 1 + - rank #1 rank #0 cond > rank #1 rank #0 -1 1;
by
def halfling onboard where #1 + - file #1 file #0 cond > file #1 file #0
-1 cond == file #1 file #0 0 1 + - rank #1 rank #0 cond > rank #1 rank #0
-1 cond == rank #1 rank #0 0 1;
which should work also when the halfling stays on the same rank or file.
wrote on i typed exactly this :
--
g10-e10
--
and it tells me this :
--
This preset now uses the new code for identifying check, checkmate, and
stalemate. Let me know of any problems with it.
You may not move a o from g10 to e10
--
I mean, even the grammar doesn't hold !!
wrote on Should work, Abdul-Rahman. The preset is rules-enforced so it will change automatically to a halfling bishop. So if you tried to manually change it, it won't work. Try again?
wrote on Does the preset have a bug or something ? It doesn't allow me to move my
changeling from g10-e10 ..
Or is it something in the rules I don't understand ? the page says
they're absolute halflings, not relative halflings.
wrote on Yeah, lol. This was a total accident, no disrespect meant. I saved some experimentation to the wrong preset. I will change it back.
wrote on Hey Greg - Jeremy was looking at an alternate piece set, and flipped the pieces here to it, but hasn't yet flipped them back - I'm waiting for him to do so, so I can move a piece I understand...lol
wrote on What happened here? It looks like pieces have suddenly changed (both placement and icon.)
wrote on Thanks for the game. My cannon showed up too late for the battle!
wrote on ....yeah, and I'm tempted to play Q d1-a8 // check...but guessing you'd
find some 'technical' illegality associated with that too!!
Seriously though...oops! Was too focused on the impending onslaught of
bishops and queen on my fragile king's little corner of the world to even
notice the rook up there. My bad.
If you could, as the computer thinks it's your turn, you can, with my
permission, type 'won' or type 'g2-h1; r-g2; (your move)' or type
'g2-h2;r-h2 // check' and I'll make a different move (Q d1-a8 //
check?)...guess typing 'resign' would also be an option, but it may not
be legal if it follows my illegal move.
Good game, you crushed me. Sorry for the goof up.
wrote on While I am tempted to play 22... RxK, the game rules mention 'checkmate' and 'stalemate', so I have to call 22. KxR an illegal move.
wrote on Hi, Je Ju. Sorry for the ambiguous answer, but I couldn't resist. :-(
I wrote the rules so the answer to that question would be ambiguous, as
you realized when you got my politically safe 'yes'. I hope winning this
game eases the pain of that answer. [You've obviously won, since Carlos
and you both believe the knights do have legal moves.]
Thank you for actually trying this out. When I designed it, I pushed
pieces a lot, and decided it's a good training device, if nothing else. I
think at best it's all but impossible to win by your maneuverings, but
very easy to lose; one misstep is about all it takes unless your opponent
doesn't capitalize on it. This game may not be winnable in a traditional
sense.
Joe
wrote on Due to the clever ambiguity of the response, I hereby rescind the prematurely expressed gratitude...but will (hopefully) use the nonspecific response to my advantage.
wrote on Thank you too.
wrote on Thank you, too, David, I hope you enjoyed playing Moderate Progressive Chess, an excellent variant.
wrote on Thanks for the game. My knights really got to show off!
wrote on Yes. ;-)
[This *is* a 'political' game]
wrote on Carlos and I have decided to see how this one plays out...
Question regarding the two-step limitation. Can a knight (or related
piece) make a standard knight move or does that violate the two step rule?
(or is a knight's standard move deemed to be one ortho and one diagonal as
opposed to 2+1?)
Thanks in advance.
Jejujeju and carlos carlos
wrote on
The setup:
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/displaycomment.php?commentid=16778
Joe's comment: (where he called it Paroxysm)
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/displaycomment.php?commentid=16779
wrote on Guess I screwed up. That's okay. Let's just continue.
wrote on I am counting five moves for Jeremy on turn 3:
two Knight moves, two Pawn moves and O-O-O.
His 'b8-d8;' was a null move, as the b8 square was empty.
wrote on Eh? Paroxysm? What's this? I want in. What's the link?
wrote on I had been worried about 34. h5-d9.
wrote on Hi, Joe. Yes, once someone figures out how to un-mangle those badly mangled
ASCII diagrams in Sam's piece, then I can probably feel good about putting the silly complementarity piece there. Here I do it
using the command pre...ascii.../pre There I don't know how.
Btw, neat that Grand Shatranj uses three of those 16/2 pieces!
wrote on I modified George's 7th move.
wrote on Is there a special notation for denoting a Mutual Destruction Swapping move? We haven't been able to get that in our game yet here.
wrote on Sorry, move 2 please send back for one-square B, not two
wrote on sorry guys, i mistakenly assigned this as a tournament game. please ignore it as a tournament game. of course, feel free to play it out. or just call it a draw. unfortunately, i don't seem to have the power to delete tournament games, even if i assigned them. maybe someone else can if they see this.
wrote on Shield error again.
wrote on Actually, no, not true, an orphan queen (or victim queen [to be more precise, a piece that captures as an orphan but moves as a queen]) is more powerful
than a chameleon because an orphan queen can generalize the manner in
which it is attacked to win any other piece, whereas a chameleon can only
win the piece that it resembles while being observed by it.
It seems quite common for people to invent chess variants that they never
end up even playing themselves.
wrote on You're right. By move 13 it was lost for White, but what about 10. c2-c3? That might have worked for you.
wrote on How did I end up playing this game? I thought I made it clear that I can not play timed games because of my network connection. Please delete this game.
- Sam
wrote on Last Archer move-take illegal because of Shield, just send it back, Jeremy.
wrote on In the final position, White exploits double pin spoken of in kibbitz about move 32. Neither queen nor pawn can take queen because of Falcon pin! Very nice final position.
wrote on Hi, George. Okay, that's probably because I tried to keep it with the rules enforced and I probably needed to make some adjustment. I deleted the game that you 'lost on time' because you couldn't make a move. Now you should be able to move but the rules won't be enforced for now (but later I'll work on that.) [Deleted the other game that you have too little time to play. Now all that's left is the untimed game. Try and see if you can make a move in that. Sorry about this! Cheers, George.]
wrote on Falcon RNFB Preset does not allow a move. I already just lost one of those with no one making a single move, Jeremy, and another one my move impossible to play with 3 days left, because of my making the Falcon ones timed now.
wrote on I want to protest, '...but you invented it!' Fergus Duniho invented Supremo and the Pushmepullyu and he doesn't care much for such games either. [This may not be an accurate way to describe his attitude; his actual wording to me, 'I've never gotten into Ultima variants, even my own.'] I like your idea though of starting the pieces out in the forbidden zone. Looks interesting. I wonder how you can dislike ('hate' even) the chameleon but apparently like the querquisite. [Chameleon can also be described as an orphan that can move like a non-capturing queen.] In some variants with superpowerful pieces, I'm finding the Chameleon to be an essential defensive piece.
wrote on Thank you, Joe. I overlooked that. We will have to go back and re-play.
wrote on Gentlemen, are you using the following rule:
'This pawn move, called a 'push', is always a single space, and never a
capture'?
If so, I believe white's move 3 is illegal.
wrote on Sorry, but this kind of games is not really my cup of tea.
wrote on Meant to type f2-f3; N-f3. Please eliminate f2 pawn for me.
wrote on By moving shield forward, Black protects that pawn from being captured by your archer. So, re-doing my last move.
wrote on I'm not sure. Try it with 46. K g4-g5
wrote on On move 46, I was able to announce a mate in 5. But did I have a forced mate from move 42, the moment I could drop my Amazon?
wrote on Mats,
Great, thanks.
I'll let juan rod know so he can move.
Thanks, guys.
wrote on I was misled by the strange moves so I didn't check the preset properly. There is a bug in the preset which I've fixed now. Please try again. I've also fixed so that you can see the rules when clicking the rules button. /Mats
wrote on I wrote to Gary to forward this good question and he wrote back: 'I am short on time here; but... Yes - A time traveling move is still a timetraveling move. You must think of the time travels as alternate histories.'
wrote on Looks like every time Black attempts to capture a piece in this game, it is rejected with a 'you may not capture your own piece' statement. Needless to say, this is a major problem in the preset. You got around this problem on move 11 with:
11... d5- ;d8-d5 //qxp and you should be able to get around this problem on move 14 with:
11... d5- ;c6-d5 //pxq
wrote on More information ...
We were having problem with moves as early as move 3, and used some
'creative' commands to get the pieces where we intended them to be.
This may have caused confusion for the preset.
The reason I entered the Queen move from a2-d5 in the manner I did
originally was because when I entered just a2-d5 it didn't swap the pawn
and queen as intended (I don't remember what it did or said - and if I'd
have entered Q a2-d5 it may have worked, but I didn't try that).
As we were using creative commands as early as move 3, do you think we
should just delete the game and reenter the commands correctly?
wrote on Mats,
Thanks for your input and advice.
We went back a few moves and tried again, this time I think I input the
white queen move correctly. Still, when black tries to take the white
queen with his black pawn, the preset informs him it is illegal to take
his own piece.
Any ideas? Anyone? Thanks in advance.
wrote on I have to pause here, because I am unsure of the rules. Each player is limited to two backwards-time-traveling moves. Am I considered to have used up one of my backwards-time-traveling moves, even though it has been preempted by one of your such moves?
wrote on George, I just made an illegal move...sorry. Meant to move g7-e9.
If you could correct that when you make your next move I'd appreciate
it.
Thanks,
Jejujeju
wrote on ok, i tried going back and changing the entered move to Q a2-d5 so that I
could then take white's queen with my pawn. It still didn't work. Then
I tried (starting after the queen move to d5) to enter in p c6-d5 and it
keeps saying 'you may not capture your own piece'
The queen move is fine unless it somehow impeeds on the subsequent pawns
move. Its the pawn capture that i'm having trouble with. Is it my
notation?
wrote on thanks, i'll try it...
wrote on Hi! It's not the preset! In order to move the queen from a2 to d5 white
has input a strange move:
a2-d5;Q-d5
It's a minus sign there, too. I do not know what this means. To move the
queen one should simply input:
Q a2-d5
This form of faulty input should really be stopped by the Game Courier
software. If you want to continue the game you only need to back a move
and input a proper move.
/Mats
wrote on i'm having trouble making moves in magicpawn chess. i, juan, am trying to take jeju's queen with my pawn, a perfectly legal move in any game, but the preset won't allow it. any ideas???
wrote on Thank you, David. Just the link I was looking for, and interesting to see that Betza himself recommends his own test of their relative strength. I will want to try that too!
wrote on See Ralph Betza's page on Mobility, Forwardness, Distance, Colorboundness, Capture, where he writes: 'Distance: a less obvious reason for the difference in strength between the Wazir and Ferz is that the Ferz has a longer move than the Wazir. The Wazir has a move of length 1.0, the Ferz has a move of length 1.4 ( the square root of two ).'
Regarding Betza's statement, in the endgame a piece may need to move quickly from (b2) to (h8). In Midgard Chess I pointed out that this takes:
[3] moves for a War Elephant
[4] moves for a Knight or a War Machine
[6] moves for a King or a WD (Wazir+Dabbabah).
wrote on Black is in zugzwang.
wrote on Losing on time doesn't necessarily mean that you can't keep playing, if your opponent agrees to finish. Time endings don't lock games. Just a thought.
wrote on Terribly sorry about that.
wrote on I designed this preset with the notion that it would help me to achieve a better understanding of which might be superior, ferzes or wazirs. Greg Strong contended that because ferzes have more forward mobility, they are stronger. I guess this is what Betza may have contended somewhere (though I don't know exactly where -- can someone find that passage for me?). However, my own experimentation has suggested that actually wazirs are superior because of their ability to change colors, hence greater overall mobility.
Without pawns, the two sides draw, but with pawns, I'm not sure. I guess the right computer could solve this quickly, right?
Now your idea, Abdul-Rahman, complicates the issue considerably (in a very good way), and opens up an angle that I hadn't thought about in this context: Namely that pawns move like forward wazirs and capture like forward ferzes. In a sense, it speaks to the issue at hand, but in a very confusing way. Now it turns out that the issue of which pawn to use may be quite critical to the analysis at hand.
Eric Greenwood gave me permission to quote him but with the caveat that 'it's all theory, untested':
'Unless they capture, they're stuck on the same color square. If it's regular pawns, the ferzes might have an advantage because they can support a pawn advance more easily than the wazirs. With Berolina pawns, on the other hand, the wazirs would have the advantage, since they can both block and support a capture whereas all the ferzes can do is block.'
Eric noted that there are also advantages for both to either, but I haven't get the chance to explore the discussion with him as fully as I wanted. At any rate, I'm inspired enough to test all the permutations so thanks for the good idea.
wrote on Black beats me here in just two moves. ;-)
wrote on How do you like that? I got checkmated in one move -- by Black! That's a first for me, I think, and a new low. lol.
wrote on If you want to play this game with a King's Leap, I like Joe's suggestion, unmoved king jumps directly to corner squares a1 or p1 (for White) best, of course not allowed if in check...
wrote on A Lemurian Sliding General moves like the Sliding General in Lemurian Shatranj. In other words, it moves to all the squares a squirrel-guard does, only it slides and can slide a maximum of two moves away from its starting square.
wrote on This is the same question that's coming up in the topics Shatranj Values
and ChessboardMath, the values of pieces. How do these things actually
relate to one another? Our 'atoms' are wazirs and ferzs, rather chunky
for fine gradations. But Hullabaloo, goChess, and a modest number of other
games, depend very much on accurate answers. A key question there is: what
pieces do we actually figure out next?
But here, sure go ahead, add the pieces, if you think they fit. I will ask
just how a Lemurian Sliding General moves.
wrote on Ah, yes, Peter, thank you. I fixed that problem. If you want to play this with me, why not log in from the PBM logs page?
wrote on This looks like a challange, but I haven't received an e-mail yet. Also, when I click on view, I see:
This preset for Falcon Chess should enforce rules and spot check,
checkmate, and stalemate.
Illegal move on turn 0:The move do is not well-formed.Go back and try again.
Joe, I didn't think to say this when I posted my move so I'm saying it here and hoping for some feedback:
I'm thinking I should add another link, a 'missing link,' in between what is currently listed .E4 and .E5, a double moving ferz (without null - rifle ability); likewise, double-moving wazir in between .D4 and .D5 and Lemurian Sliding General in between .J4 and .J5. This would lengthen the evolution to 7 for each series (.E7, .D7, .J7). If you agree this might be a good idea, would you mind if I go ahead and just subbed those things in here?
Also, building on your remark in the game, Joe, about constructed AMPs that can be deconstructed. How about a .J8 being a Precious Commoner? Would that be worth trying out?
wrote on 'Balanced Marseillais' specifically refers to the 1, 2, 2, 2, 2, etc. order... As opposed to 'Classical Marseillais' which does initiate the game with a 2 move for white, so the analysis here is correct. This game was created mostly just as a conceptual device to show how one might actually have a game that uses the ubi ubi successfully.
One way of making it slightly less chaotic is to have a rule that states: King may move only when under check. Still, it's basically a poorly designed game that needs improvement, some more powerful and interesting pieces perhaps? The entourage could use some tweaking too perhaps.
Meanwhile, I remain deeply dissatisfied with this game and I'm hopeful a much more playable game might be created. One problem with this game is that the king's entourage is so successful at overcoming the problem of the Ubi-Ubi that the Ubi-Ubi doesn't really get a chance to do much. So I'm not sure I succeeded in my initial purpose. Maybe my musings in the notes, about even more powerful pieces, might lead us somewhere down the road towards a more successful variant.
Perhaps a much weaker entourage. Maybe instead of those pieces, neutral, immobile stones that can't capture but that can be captured.
The Alice versions are under repair. There are some complicated rules that need to be sorted out. I've been confused about it for many months. I don't advise playing them.
wrote on When white played 8. c4xf7, white assumed that Black would have to take bishop with mamra instead of king. But it turns out taking with king seems to work even better. [Added note: Or maybe not but it was unexpected. If White advances Mamra instead of moving the queen, Black Mamra takes queen and then Black Mamra comes back to defend g6 square with Mamra.]
wrote on I believe that Black has no effective defense by move 5 and will lose.
wrote on On move 7, for white: bishop takes cobra.
wrote on Hmmm...might be an interesting line. Still might be an interesting line.
wrote on Better alternative may have been 8.h5-h6, with discovered attack against Marshall at j7 forcing i5-g4 (alternative j7-h8 allows h6-i7, with forking win of piece) after which I'm not sure...
wrote on Multiple displacement moves are allowed. However, the points add up fast, expecially with pieces moving more than once.
wrote on David, in your rules, you do not specifically say that multiple displacement moves are prohibited. (Or do you?) So could the same piece capture more than one piece? [Added note: After I re-read the rules and saw the penalty for moving the same piece more than once, this became less of a concern to me]
wrote on Here Dan beats me in just three moves.
wrote on Okay, problem solved. It WAS because I misnotated.
wrote on it wouldn't let me pass
wrote on Carlos, hope you haven't forgotten about our game.
Just a heads up, you have only 3 days left on the clock...
I'd hate to beat you on time again...
wrote on I think maybe i was supposed to play p*e4 -- why don't you pass and I'll try to get it right this time.
wrote on I don't know. but now I can't drop my pawn. it says 'you cannot move your opponent's pieces'
wrote on I thought I entered this right, but I shouldn't have that pawn in my airfield, I don't think. Did I do something wrong? Talking about black's move 8.
wrote on The threat would then be b4-c2; a6-b4 which would win white's queen.
wrote on An interesting way to play this particular variant of FIDE Chess Kamil (and also speed things up) would be to say that not only does the extra piece substitute when the original vacates its home square, but that piece then has to follow the original piece around until the original is captured. For example on Black's move 15 if black moves a6-b5, the b8 archbishop must then occupy the square the bishop previously occupied at a6. This would be possible because all of the extra pieces retain the original pieces' type of movement.
wrote on When Black made his fifth move, he forgot that Squirrels (Greenwood likes to call them *Fortresses) can capture like a knight, in addition to alfil and dabbaba.
[*corrected]
wrote on via d1, e8, f7
wrote on how does the queen go from c2 to g6?
wrote on Sorry. Problem fixed. :-)
wrote on Duh !! How come black starts ?
wrote on Okay for preset, Abdul-Rahman, for CPermChess, whichever way to link up Rules. How about other FC 8x10 Preset with your suggestion 'RFNB...' to start to discriminate if one has edge? Also Queen Full Board okay, I think you mean one with Scorpion and Dragon too.
wrote on I meant to say this in the rules too: If one of the Warp Points is
captured, the remaining one works in partnership with the king.
This variant is purely experimental, totally untested.
wrote on Nice, I never saw the web page for Complete Permutation Chess. It looks
like a nice variant. I can make a preset with a write-up to the rules
(either as a link to the page, or, if it's deleted, in the preset's page
itself.)
If you give me the green light I'll put it in my to-do list.
By the way, the Queen Full Board variant is 13x13, I miscounted the
files!! You could add empty ranks and files around the board though, kinda
like the board of 12x12 Chess.
(In an unrelated note, my name is Abdul-Rahman, not just Abdul. Nothing
important, just a little annoyance.)
wrote on Except would have swapped, then AxS, then LL adjacent to A
wrote on For Black's tenth move: Instead of recapturing on c00, a good move might have been to move my advancer to f1.
wrote on Don't worry about it -- I'll figure it out at some point.
wrote on Peter, I would so like to be able to follow your instructions, but unfortunately, I don't know how. I'm not trying to be difficult, I just don't know my way around the innards of this website very well. Sorry.
wrote on Jeremy, I'm at work and don't have access to my admin password. Could you do two things for me? First, delete complete-permutation.zip from the zillions directory if it is still there. Second, remove the deleted mark from the index entry for Complete Permutation Chess. Thanks!
PS: If you're feel like it, could you simply remove the whole 'Computer Play' section from Complete Permutation Chess page?
wrote on We were hoping for & thinking of requesting a GC Preset for CompPChess, a neat 'idea game', when Abdul commented June 2007 about unusual FC variants. Or maybe Joe Joyce's concurrent Comment. I hope JGood is able to make Preset for CPC. It is misunderstanding that anyone objects most any FC CV in Game Courier; GC was new at the time CPC 16x8 disappeared. If you make Preset, Jeremy, please challenge me to game; and though rules self-explanatory I hope Aronson makes write-up available again. Abdul's FC Comment 27.June.07 of 15x15 compounds would be related CV.
wrote on Jeremy, I de-indexed Complete Permutation Chess as George requested me to take it down. I did not realize this would leave it searchable. I guess we'd better just delete it.
wrote on As a matter of fact, the game Complete Permutation Chess does not appear to be indexed, though one may find it by doing a web search.
wrote on Thank you. I hadn't been aware of complete permutation chess. Will try to make a preset.
wrote on Aronson calls Falcon+Queen 'Winged Amazon' in Complete Permutation Chess(2003). Any of those Falcon compounds in presets fine, but did not want them in Zillions. We just think of difference between Z. and Game Courier as commercial versus non-commercial. I would rather not distinguish every case which Falcon-compound usages are USP5690334 for 'write-ups'. So, solution is just to notify of a 'Preset' planned using Falcon, or make your own Falcon games on 8x8 or smaller for 'new invention'. It is still true that, except for a dozen enthusiasts, Jeremy, myself, Abdul, Bogot, Lavieri, most games do not get played much. Same for other families of games than Falcon, for ex., the Rococo-Maxima family. So, our philosophies differ: it makes sense to those playing Falcon since 1992, pre-CVPage, to settle on 5 or 10 versions with Falcon-Scorpion-Dragon rather than multiplicity. We still await Abdul's simple alteration 'R-F-N-B', written in my old notebooks, on 8x10. But if Jeremy wants some Lemurian Falcon mix to play once or twice, go for it, in Game Courier. Thanks for interest and recent Falcon Comments, as said e-mail.
wrote on Black blundered by saying 'to move 8' Had black removed a pawn on move 6 and said move 7, that would have been impossible for white to counter effectively. Had black removed the queen and said move 7, I think white might have found a temporary defense. White blundered on move 7 by saying 'move 9'. Had white said something like Move 17, white could have won a piece by move 8. As it happens, I believe white will be forced to lose at least the exchange.
wrote on Thanks George, for the very interesting info. You know what types of pieces might be very interesting? Compounds involving the Falcon family. For example, a Falcon Queen, a Scorpion Queen and a Dragon Queen, but all sorts of other compounds. A Falcon - Scorpion, etc. Also, a Falcon is weaker than a Bison, but a Falcon that was capable of capturing along any of its multipath routes would obviously be a very, very strong piece that might fit very well into a very powerful army (such as the Lemurian FIDE pieces which move as one FIDE piece then another, for example, a Lemurian cardinal moves as knight then bishop or bishop then knight).
wrote on For 8 ranks I think they are slightly behind Falcon despite having more squares within 9x9 and 11x11 from a central square. So, Falcon 6.5, Scorpion 6.1, Dragon 5.7 here. Once there are ten ranks it would go more like Falcon 6.0, Scorpion 6.4, Dragon 6.8. By 12x12 board Falcon probably equalizes with Rook around 5.0--keeping Pawns close to 1.0.
wrote on George, what do you estimate to be the relative values of Falcon, Scorpion and Dragon on this board? (Anyone?)
wrote on Mmm, very nice observation that illustrates beautifully pinning power of fascinating falcon piece.
wrote on Ah, okay! Didn't see this until today. I've excluded the pieces not used in the opening. However, I can't correct the displayed pieces in the rule summary below the board, oddly enough. Could I ask you to just ignore it? I don't actually know how to do those rule summaries myself. If it bothers you a lot, let me know and I can make a new preset that won't have those rules below it.
wrote on Look at position Move 32 in this two-weeks-suspended game. White can take Queen with Pawn-g2 and with Knight-g1. But he cannot because of Falcon then checking White King.
wrote on But meanwhile, let's try with the four move rule. Maybe even try three move rule after that before trying two move. Let's just see how long we can last. lol. Should be fun.
wrote on Thank you for that comment. Was wondering precisely about that.
Cheers!
wrote on I am wondering, if someone could create am Alice Chess preset where the pieces on Board B look upside down. Can anyone do it ?
wrote on Duplicated
wrote on You know what's cool? One side having Berlin pawns.
wrote on Hmm, this looks interesting I'll accept this if you do me the favor of
checking the 'Exclude pieces not in setup' square and correct the icons
in the Rules summary.
(How do you do one of those rule summaries, btw?)
wrote on Ed Friedlander's applet shows correctly how the Airplane moves. Check it
out.
To sum it up, it jumps to ANY vacant square on the same rank, file or
diagonal. If it jumps to a square immediately behind an enemy piece that
piece is captured.
wrote on Just re-do your sixth move and we're good.
wrote on The mistake is very understandable since the icon looks similar to the sliding general of Lemurian Shatranj which can switch direction in the middle of its movement. Of course, the Chu Shogi lion is a slightly different creature altogether, with its strange capturing rules and ability to return to the same square.
wrote on Hmm .. Obviously I made a mistake in this game. The Sliding General is a Q2 .. but I understood it to be like a Chu Shogi Lion. Would you rather continue the game or start a new one ?
wrote on Thanks for the invite, but I am cutting back on my internet chess. Catch you in the tournament.
wrote on I must also beg to differ with your analysis. The rules state that there are no captures, but that it is otherwise as with usual chess. It is stated that there are no legal moves in the notes, not the rules. While an implication of the rules is that there are no legal moves, this is not clearly stated in the rules, but rather in the notes.
wrote on I can not rescind my claim of victory unless you go back and re-do your first move, make another move, perhaps a pass on your first move... I will be happy then to rescind my claim of victory, but I must warn you that it is not likely I shall later admit defeat.
wrote on I did not make a legal move. The rules clearly state there are no legal moves. Therefore, I made an illegal move. The specific illegal move made was capture of the king, which, as we all know, is not legal in FIDE. So, either I won, or the move has to be replayed. In either case, you could not have won. You must rescind your claim of victory! ;-)
wrote on White made an illegal move. Rules state that no capturing is allowed.
wrote on If you are looking for an opponent, do not enter your name in both places.
wrote on So, this morning this one said at the top JeJu HAS WON ON TIME with the smaller lower line: blank. Now it says, JeJu HAS WON (big)/ smaller lower line: JeJu has won on time. Now it corresponds to the style of 15June JeJu-Duke better. Poor Carlos too, I think, oh well.
wrote on I did notice the time getting short, I think we were both at about 2 days
and change, both taking about an 8 hour loss presumably while the other
slept, and then there was one occassion of you missing a cycle and losing
a day or so that I retained. All rough numbers, but I think I was just
over a day left when you had 7 hours or so...and after that you didn't
move before time expired. If setting with no grace period, 14 days might
be more practical than 7 days.
Regarding the wording on the top of either our game or the one with
Carlos...I have no idea how/why they would be different or how/why one
might change 57 days after its completion.
wrote on The larger banner at the top said 'JeJu HAS WON ON TIME', a couple hours ago. Now it says only 'JeJu HAS WON'. So, someone is following this discussion and doing some clean-up programming. Likely time ran out here for Carlos, maybe time ran out in some sense in 15.June.07 JeJu-Duke for Duke. But this is peculiar change to take place today.
wrote on In the last two hours, the large banner at the top of the 57-day-old game JeJu-Carlos 'JeJu HAS WON ON TIME' has been changed to 'JeJu HAS WON'. I saw it today, made copy and wrote words of the large banner in the Comment just below. It's now gone, changed today. The full wording now is dropped to the secondary mini-banner, which said nothing before. So too I wonder whether JeJu yourself saw time ticking away to small numbers in 15June Duke-JeJu, despite no Grace Time, or how evenly the Time went down. Understandable motivation on my part too even in friendly non-tournament play. No really great moment, just intriguing, and I'll pick up our Elephant Chess, JeJu before long.
wrote on JeJu, your game with Carlos recorded 57 days ago says 'JeJu HAS WON ON TIME,' same Falcon Chess Preset. This one says 'JeJu HAS WON.' I remembered seeing that Jeju-Carlos game before, and noting the discrepancy made two Comments right away June 15, this Kibitz and regular. I admit I never checked off a timed invitation until this June 2007, annoyed by other delays. Since our game we always moved every day, and oftener in couple of spates, I am just studying what intervention, or shortcoming in parameters, makes for the different wording and purported result.
wrote on George, I can't move and have no idea how to re-set.
The reason the game ended is that you ran out of time. This game had 0
seconds of grace period, so when it was your turn and you hadn't moved,
or my turn and I hadn't moved, the clock ticked and additional time was
never given when a timely move was made. Both of our clocks were getting
low, but yours got there first. As I accepted your invitation for this
game, I assumed you were aware of the time settings. I kind of like the
idea of a ticking clock, but probably doesn't work so well when the
players are in very different time zones.
wrote on I just checked with a move in this game, and it vanished. I certainly didn't hit Status, je ju, so please correct and play on. Or Editor please correct. GW Duke
wrote on EMAIL notification for this move took 22 minutes to arrive. I had already spotted your move on Game Courier Game Logs. The internet is full of mysteries.
wrote on 'Many presets are now programmed to update the status automatically, and for those that aren't, there are commands available for updating it from the Moves field. If you have won a game, enter won to mark your victory.'
Todor: you need to send won as your move, then this game will be recorded as over.
wrote on Third time lucky? Joe, you need to adjust your wandering pawn!
wrote on If [f8-h8] does not do the job, then see if [f8-h8; j8-g8] works. WARNING: I have not checked to see how far the King actually travels in this variant.
wrote on what commands do i use to castle in this game?
wrote on Move the piece to the square it MOVES to, like ( f4-d4 ) and then remove
the captured piece, like ( e4- ).
The full move would be written like ( f4-d4;e4- ) in case of multiple
captures, just repeat the process ( f4-d4; e4-; d4-d6; d5- ).
wrote on It would be easier to type moves if the middle board was simple a1, a2 not
Ba1 and Ba2.
Then any move would be either e2-e4 or Ce2-e4
Just a thought.
wrote on Total Time: 11 days, 22 hours, 48 minutes, 14 seconds Remaining Time: less than zero seconds Elapsed: 13 days, 19 hours, 56 minutes, 5 seconds I just ran a search under 'fergus' and came up with the figures above. Well, I am officially confused now.
wrote on would just like to point out that White's third move Bishop to c3 is illegal.
wrote on would just like to point out that White's third move Bishop to c3 is illegal.
wrote on Fergus, I had noticed a discrepancy in time but did not realize it was so
great. I had planned on emailing you this evening about this, thinking you
had some days left but were getting to the end of your time. Given that the
available information that all could see was that you did have time left, I
would be most willing to have a time adjustment. Truthfully, I would rather
lose by playing than win by not playing. My sincere apologies for not
contacting you last week. I encourage you to consider an adjustment.
Joe
wrote on There seems to be a discrepancy between how Game Courier calculates remaining time and how the Logs page does it. Game Courier says I have no time left, whereas the Logs page says I have 11 days left. I assume Game Courier is correct and I need to fix the Logs page to match it. So that I have data for making the right adjustment, I will refrain from moving until I can fix the Logs page. You win. You had the advantage, and I was taking too long to move.
wrote on I should note that because White moved on the second board on his first move the board order stated in the rules has been reversed.
wrote on I should note that because White moved on the second board on his first move the board order stated in the rules has been reversed.
wrote on i mean a2 and a3 (not b2 and b3)...
wrote on When I attempt to move I get this msg:
Syntax Error on line 1
%0A1.%20i2-h4%20%0A1...%20h8-h7%20%0A%2F%2F%20Here%20goes.%20Enjoy.%0A2.%20g3-g4%20%0A%2F%2F%20Don%27t%20you%20use%20the%20lightning%20war%20machine%20and%20the%20oliphant%0A%2F%2F%20in%20Lemurian%20Shatranj%20too%2C%20Joe%3F%20Or%20am%20I%20missing%20something%0A%2F%2F%20that%27s%20different%20about%20those%20pieces%3F%20Because%20those%20are%0A%2F%2F%20available%20in%20the%20Alfaerie%20-%20Many%20as%20well%20now%20you%20know%20and%20I%0A%2F%2F%20can%20create%20a%20Lemurian%20preset%20with%20those.%0A2...%20f8-f7%20%0A%2F%2F%20I%20thought%20I%27d%20answered%20this%20before%2C%20but%20you%20may%20be%20asking%0A%2F%2F%20a%20move%20rather%20than%20a%20piece%20question%2C%20so%20the%20pieces%20here%20move%0A%2F%2F%20twice%2C%20using%20either%20%27half%27%20of%20their%20basic%20move%20each%20time%2C%20so%0A%2F%2F%20a%20lightning%20warmachine%20%28best%20name%20I%20could%20come%20up%20with%20for%0A%2F%2F%20the%20letter%20%27L%27%20and%20that%20piece.%29%20could%20move%20as%20a%20dababbah%2C%0A%2F%2F%20then%20again%20as%20a%20dabbabah%2C%20moving%204%20squares.%20The%20Lemurian%0A%2F%2F%20pieces%20may%20only%20move%20as%20the%20two%20halves%20of%20their%20move%2C%20one%20at%0A%2F%2F%20a%20time.%20So%20a%20Lem%20dababba%20%5BD%26W%20rather%20than%20DW%20or%20D%2BW%5D%20may%0A%2F%2F%20slide%20one%3B%20jump%20two%3B%20slide%20one%20then%20jump%20two%3B%20or%20jump%20two%0A%2F%2F%20then%20slide%20one%20as%20its%20only%20moves.%20It%20only%20gets%20to%20use%20each%0A%2F%2F%20half%20of%20its%20move%20once%2C%20and%20can%20move%20a%20max%20of%203%20squares.%0A3.%20f3-f4%20%0A%2F%2F%20Do%20the%20Lemurian%20pieces%20have%20to%20move%20in%20the%20same%20direction%3F%0A%2F%2F%20I%20guess%20that%27s%20what%20the%20parallel%20lines%20indicate%20here%2C%20no%3F%0A%2F%2F%20Movement%20in%20the%20same%20direction%3F%20%28As%20opposed%20to%20the%20zigzag%0A%2F%2F%20lines%20of%20Atlantean%3F%29%0A3...%20g8-g7%20%0A%2F%2F%20I%27d%20actually%20thought%20of%20the%20lines%20as%20%272%27%20parallel%20lines%2C%0A%2F%2F%20indicating%20that%20the%20piece%20steps%20twice%2C%20but%20your%0A%2F%2F%20interpretation%20is%20actually%20equally%20as%20valid.%20So%20that%27s%20the%0A%2F%2F%20last%20piece%20in%20the%20chain%3A%20the%20zigzag%20general%20does%20not%20exist%21%0A%2F%2F%20%201%20-%20no%20actual%20piece%2C%20the%20lines%20are%202%20and%20parallel%0A%2F%2F%20%202%20-%20no%20description%20in%202Large%2C%20anywhere%0A%2F%2F%20%203%20-%20things%20that%20are%20discovered%20in%20a%20bar%20%28like%20the%20zigzag%0A%2F%2F%20general%20piece%29%20rarely%20have%20any%20validity%20or%20come%20to%20actual%0A%2F%2F%20existance.%0A4.%20b2-c4%20%0A4...%20g7-g6%20%0A%2F%2F%20maybe%20something%20a%20little%20different%20for%20this%20game%2C%20if%20I%20can%0A%2F%2F%20remember%20after%2034%20other%20games.%0A5.%20e3-e4%20%0A%2F%2F%20I%20would%20like%20to%20see%20you%20do%20another%20Shatranj%20variation%0A%2F%2F%20called%2C%20%27Strange%20Shatranj%27%20just%20for%20the%20hell%20of%20it%20because%20it%0A%2F%2F%20sounds%20fun.%0A5...%20h7-h6%20%0A%2F%2F%20How%20much%20stranger%20than%20Barroom%20and%20some%20of%20the%20Lem%20pieces%0A%2F%2F%20can%20I%20get%20%3F%0A6.%20d3-d4%20%0A%2F%2F%20Actually%2C%20I%20think%20the%20movements%20in%20those%20games%20are%20all%0A%2F%2F%20pretty%20commonsensical%20and%20represent%20a%20very%20natural%0A%2F%2F%20progression.%20Of%20course%2C%20they%20take%20getting%20used%20to%2C%20but%20so%20do%0A%2F%2F%20all%20pieces.%20True%2C%20they%20do%20belong%20to%20a%20relatively%20unfamiliar%0A%2F%2F%20class%20of%20pieces%20but%20they%20just%20don%27t%20seem%20very%20strange%20to%20me.%0A%2F%2F%20They%20feel%20like%20a%20breath%20of%20fresh%20air.%20I%20guess%2C%20to%20answer%20your%0A%2F%2F%20rhetorical%20question%2C%20you%20can%20get%20a%20lot%20stranger%2C%20obviously%21%20I%0A%2F%2F%20don%27t%20know%20how%20much%21%20A%20LOT%21%0A6...%20i8-i7%20%0A%2F%2F%20What%20did%20you%20think%20of%20Walkers%20and%20Jumpers%3F%20How%20would%20these%0A%2F%2F%20pieces%20go%2C%20on%20that%20board%2C%20under%20those%20rules%2C%20with%20these%20basic%0A%2F%2F%20moves...%20%3F%21%3F%0A7.%20a1-e1%20%0A%2F%2F%20Joe%2C%20I%20can%27t%20answer%20your%20questions%20about%20Walkers%20and%0A%2F%2F%20Jumpers%20because%20I%20really%20haven%27t%20examined%20it.%20It%27s%20still%20on%0A%2F%2F%20my%202do%20list.%0A%2F%2F%0A%2F%2F%20Meanwhile%2C%20ahem%2C%20I%20think%20I%20may%20have%20a%20bit%20of%20a%20bone%20to%0A%2F%2F%20pick%20with%20you.%20The%20zigzag%20general%20in%20Atlantean%20Barroom%0A%2F%2F%20Shatranj%20should%20have%20a%20z%20and%20not%20two%20parallel%20lines%2C%0A%2F%2F%20indicating%20that%20it%20is%20doomed%20to%20unidirectional%20movement%20as%0A%2F%2F%20with%20these%20grand%20shatranj%20pieces%20%28oliphant%20and%20lightnight%20war%0A%2F%2F%20machine%29%2C%20no%3F%20You%20are%20confusing%20me%20with%20your%20graphic%0A%2F%2F%20shorthand%20here%21%0A7...%20g6-g5%20%0A%2F%2F%20Ah%2C%20you%20are%20absolutely%20right%2C%20in%20some%20ways.%20I%20claim%20the%0A%2F%2F%20zigzag%20general%20does%20not%20actually%20exist.%20Look%20through%202Large%20-%0A%2F%2F%20there%20is%20no%20mention%20of%20it.%20So%20there%20can%27t%20actually%20be%20a%20piece%0A%2F%2F%20for%20it.%0A%2F%2F%20Okay%2C%20I%20admit%20to%20making%20a%20Double-Jumping%20General%2C%20and%20not%0A%2F%2F%20a%20ZigZag%20one%2C%20but%20I%20was%20trying%20to%20make%20a%20range%20of%20pieces%20to%0A%2F%2F%20cover%20every%20eventuality%2C%20which%20explains%20the%20totally%20unused%0A%2F%2F%20camel%20in%20the%20GS%20alfaerie%20pieces%2C%20and%20no%20ZZG.%20Since%20I%20hadn%27t%0A%2F%2F%20planned%20on%20using%20a%20double-jumping%20general%2C%20I%20used%20its%20icon%0A%2F%2F%20for%20the%20ZZG.%20And%20it%27s%20such%20a%20nice%20icon%20I%20hate%20to%20waste%20it.%0A%2F%2F%20Also%2C%20I%20think%20the%20%27Z%27s%20are%20a%20little%20feeble%20-%20I%27d%20like%20the%20top%0A%2F%2F%20and%20bottom%20cross-strokes%20of%20the%20%27Z%27%20to%20be%20exactly%20as%20they%20are%0A%2F%2F%20on%20the%20current%20ZZG%20piece.%20If%20you%20wish%2C%20you%20may%20think%20of%20it%20as%0A%2F%2F%20a%20Double-Crossing%20General%20instead%20of%20a%20zigzag%20one%2C%20%27cause%20it%0A%2F%2F%20cheats%21%20But%20the%20slanted%20downstroke%20looks%20really%20bad%20unless%0A%2F%2F%20the%20%27Z%27%20shape%20is%20huge.%20I%27m%20also%20deciding%20to%20use%20the%20DW%20icons%0A%2F%2F%20for%20the%20D%2BW%20piece%20in%20Lem%2C%20and%20so%20on.%20This%20saves%20me%20making%20a%0A%2F%2F%20whole%20buncha%20new%20pieces.%20Actually%2C%20it%20saves%20my%20son%20%5Bbut%20do%0A%2F%2F%20you%20think%20he%20appreciates%20it%3F%20Huh%3F%20rofl%5D%0A8.%20f4-g5%20%0A8...%20h6-g5%20%2F%2FPxP%0A%2F%2F%20Okay%2C%20you%27ve%20convinced%20me%20to%20go%20for%20all%20new%20pieces.%20I%0A%2F%2F%20actually%20feel%20the%20same%20way%20you%20do%2C%20that%20it%27s%20just%20too%0A%2F%2F%20confusing%20to%20have%20the%20same%20piece%20with%20different%20moves%20in%0A%2F%2F%20different%20games.%20Each%20new%20piece%20requires%20a%20new%20icon.%0A9.%20h4-f5%20%0A%2F%2F%20These%20pieces%20are%20all%20appropriate%20to%20this%20game%20though%2C%0A%2F%2F%20aren%27t%20they%3F%0A9...%20e8-e7%20%0A%2F%2F%20Yes%2C%20these%20%5Bnew%5D%20pieces%20were%20designed%20for%20this%20specific%0A%2F%2F%20game%2C%20as%20were%20great%27s.%20Only%20ABS%20has%20that%20little%20problem%2C%20but%0A%2F%2F%20I%20figured%20I%20wanted%20that%20piece%20more%20than%20the%20one%20you%20made%2C%20if%0A%2F%2F%20I%20could%20only%20have%20one%2C%20because%20it%27s%20more%20flexible.%20If%20it%20had%0A%2F%2F%20a%20Z%20on%20it%2C%20I%20could%20never%20use%20it%20in%20another%20game%20for%20a%0A%2F%2F%20non-bent%20piece.%20This%20way%2C%20by%20initially%20calling%20it%20the%20zigzag%0A%2F%2F%20general%2C%20and%20defining%20its%20move%20as%20bent%20allows%20me%20to%20cheat%2C%0A%2F%2F%20because%20when%20I%20use%20it%20as%20the%20double-jumping%20general%2C%20I%20can%0A%2F%2F%20point%20out%20the%20obvious%20design%20features%20that%20prove%20it%20was%20the%0A%2F%2F%20DJG%20all%20along%2C%20and%20only%20gets%20zigzag%20when%20he%27s%20drunk.%0A10.%20e1-e3%3B%20e3-e5%20%0A10...%20i9-h7%20%0A11.%20e5-e3%20%0A11...%20f7-f6%20%0A%2F%2F%20This%20looks%20like%20a%20decent%20move.%20I%20may%20hold%20off%20a%20bit%20on%0A%2F%2F%20tile-rider%2C%20until%20I%20get%20more%20time%20to%20look%20at%20it%20-%20I%27m%20playing%0A%2F%2F%20catch-up%20now%2C%20after%20losing%20a%20couple%20weeks.%20Hope%20all%27s%20well%0A%2F%2F%20with%20you.%0A12.%20e4-e5%20%0A%2F%2F%20Hi%20Joe.%20%3A-%29%0A12...%20c8-c7%20%0A%2F%2F%20Howdy.%0A13.%20g2-e4%20%0A%2F%2F%20Hi%2C%20Joe.%20I%20just%20dropped%20a%20big%20glass%20bottle%20of%20Jalapeno%0A%2F%2F%20Ranch%20dressing%20on%20my%20kitchen%20floor%20and%20spent%20about%20ten%0A%2F%2F%20minutes%20cleaning%20it%20up.%20Perhaps%20the%20freshness%20of%20this%0A%2F%2F%20experience%20will%20help%20me%20make%20a%20less%20sloppy%20move%20here%20in%20our%0A%2F%2F%20game.%0A13...%20g9-e8%20%2F%2Fdid%20you%20ever%20replace%20that%20bottle%3F%0A14.%20j1-f1%20%0A%2F%2F%20Would%20you%20believe%20I%20forgot%20about%20it%20last%20time%20I%20went%0A%2F%2F%20shopping%3F%21%20Thanks%20for%20the%20reminder.%20Jalapeno%20Ranch%20dressing.%0A%2F%2F%20I%20will%20feel%20much%20more%20comfortable%20once%20I%20replace%20it.%20I%20like%0A%2F%2F%20having%20options%20for%20my%20salad%20dressings%20and%20that%20one%20was%20good.%0A%2F%2F%20I%20wonder%20whether%20I%20can%20get%20my%20seven%20year%20old%20daughter%20to%20try%0A%2F%2F%20it%20out.%20She%20doesn%27t%20like%20things%20that%20are%20spicy%20but%20she%20likes%0A%2F%2F%20ranch%20dressing.%0A14...%20e7-e6%20%0A%2F%2F%20Luck%20with%20getting%20a%20kid%20to%20expand%20her%20food%20horizons%21%20There%0A%2F%2F%20are%20ways%2C%20depending%20on%20just%20what%20she%27s%20like%2C%20but%20it%20could%0A%2F%2F%20take%20some%20serious%20work.%0A15.%20f5-g3%20%0A15...%20d8-d7%20%0A%2F%2F%20You%20also%20seem%20to%20be%20in%20a%20decent%20position%20in%20this%20game.%0A%2F%2F%20Both%20sides%20appear%20to%20have%20good%20play%20here.%20There%20is%20one%20odd%0A%2F%2F%20thing%2C%20though.%20Once%20again%2C%20I%20have%20moved%20pawns%20almost%0A%2F%2F%20exclusively%20in%20the%20beginning%2C%2013%20of%2015%20turns.%20And%2C%20again%0A%2F%2F%20looking%20at%20the%20board%20and%20not%20the%20move%20list%2C%20you%20have%20made%205%0A%2F%2F%20pawn%20and%2010%20piece%20moves.%20Your%20move%20pattern%2Fratio%20is%0A%2F%2F%20reasonably%20normal%20chess%3B%20mine%20is%20not.%20I%20often%20play%20very%0A%2F%2F%20pawn-heavy%20openings%2C%20and%20I%20don%27t%20entirely%20know%20why%2C%20except%0A%2F%2F%20that%20it%20seemed%20reasonable%20to%20make%20each%20move%20at%20the%20time.%0A16.%20e5-f6%20%0A16...%20h7-f6%20%2F%2FNxP%0A17.%20e4-g5%20%0A17...%20j10-h10%20%0A%2F%2F%20I%20begin%20to%20see%20why%20you%20asked%20me%20about%20the%20relative%20values%0A%2F%2F%20of%20the%20ollie%20and%20the%20priestess.%20I%20gave%20values%20of%207%20and%2010%2C%0A%2F%2F%20but%20said%20I%20was%20unsure.%20The%20oliphant%20may%20be%20unde - %20a%0A%2F%2F%20point%20or%20so%2C%20because%20the%20double-jump%20is%20not%20considered.%20The%0A%2F%2F%20high%20priestess%20should%20be%20worth%20about%20as%20much%20as%20the%0A%2F%2F%20archbishop%2C%20no%3F%20That%27s%20about%207%2C%20so%2Cgive%20a%20point%20for%20the%0A%2F%2F%20jump%2C%20and%20you%20have%20the%20ollie%20and%20the%20priestess%20both%20worth%0A%2F%2F%20about%208...%0A18.%20g5-i6%20%0A18...%20f6-h7%20%2F%2F%20hmmm%2C%20I%20am%20down%20a%20pawn%20here...%0A19.%20h3-h4%20%0A19...%20j8-j7%20%2F%2F%20You%20seem%20to%20have%20developed%20an%20edge%20in%20this%20game.%0A20.%20i6-h5%20%0A20...%20i7-i6%20%0A21.%20h5-i4%20%0A21...%20h9-f7%20%0A22.%20g4-g5%20%0A22...%20f7-i4%20%2F%2FOxH%0A%2F%2F%20surprise%3F%20Happy%20Easter%21%0A23.%20j3-i4%20%0A%2F%2F%20That%20move%20did%20surprise%20me%20but%20it%20looks%20like%20a%20good%20move%0A%2F%2F%20for%20you.%0A23...%20b9-d8%20%2F%2F%20Now%2C%20if%20I%20can%20keep%20you%20from%20any%20good%20moves...%0A24.%20h4-h5 is not a valid expression, because %0A1.%20i2-h4%20%0A1...%20h8-h7%20%0A%2F%2F%20Here%20goes.%20Enjoy.%0A2.%20g3-g4%20%0A%2F%2F%20Don%27t%20you%20use%20the%20lightning%20war%20machine%20and%20the%20oliphant%0A%2F%2F%20in%20Lemurian%20Shatranj%20too%2C%20Joe%3F%20Or%20am%20I%20missing%20something%0A%2F%2F%20that%27s%20different%20about%20those%20pieces%3F%20Because%20those%20are%0A%2F%2F%20available%20in%20the%20Alfaerie%20-%20Many%20as%20well%20now%20you%20know%20and%20I%0A%2F%2F%20can%20create%20a%20Lemurian%20preset%20with%20those.%0A2...%20f8-f7%20%0A%2F%2F%20I%20thought%20I%27d%20answered%20this%20before%2C%20but%20you%20may%20be%20asking%0A%2F%2F%20a%20move%20rather%20than%20a%20piece%20question%2C%20so%20the%20pieces%20here%20move%0A%2F%2F%20twice%2C%20using%20either%20%27half%27%20of%20their%20basic%20move%20each%20time%2C%20so%0A%2F%2F%20a%20lightning%20warmachine%20%28best%20name%20I%20could%20come%20up%20with%20for%0A%2F%2F%20the%20letter%20%27L%27%20and%20that%20piece.%29%20could%20move%20as%20a%20dababbah%2C%0A%2F%2F%20then%20again%20as%20a%20dabbabah%2C%20moving%204%20squares.%20The%20Lemurian%0A%2F%2F%20pieces%20may%20only%20move%20as%20the%20two%20halves%20of%20their%20move%2C%20one%20at%0A%2F%2F%20a%20time.%20So%20a%20Lem%20dababba%20%5BD%26W%20rather%20than%20DW%20or%20D%2BW%5D%20may%0A%2F%2F%20slide%20one%3B%20jump%20two%3B%20slide%20one%20then%20jump%20two%3B%20or%20jump%20two%0A%2F%2F%20then%20slide%20one%20as%20its%20only%20moves.%20It%20only%20gets%20to%20use%20each%0A%2F%2F%20half%20of%20its%20move%20once%2C%20and%20can%20move%20a%20max%20of%203%20squares.%0A3.%20f3-f4%20%0A%2F%2F%20Do%20the%20Lemurian%20pieces%20have%20to%20move%20in%20the%20same%20direction%3F%0A%2F%2F%20I%20guess%20that%27s%20what%20the%20parallel%20lines%20indicate%20here%2C%20no%3F%0A%2F%2F%20Movement%20in%20the%20same%20direction%3F%20%28As%20opposed%20to%20the%20zigzag%0A%2F%2F%20lines%20of%20Atlantean%3F%29%0A3...%20g8-g7%20%0A%2F%2F%20I%27d%20actually%20thought%20of%20the%20lines%20as%20%272%27%20parallel%20lines%2C%0A%2F%2F%20indicating%20that%20the%20piece%20steps%20twice%2C%20but%20your%0A%2F%2F%20interpretation%20is%20actually%20equally%20as%20valid.%20So%20that%27s%20the%0A%2F%2F%20last%20piece%20in%20the%20chain%3A%20the%20zigzag%20general%20does%20not%20exist%21%0A%2F%2F%20%201%20-%20no%20actual%20piece%2C%20the%20lines%20are%202%20and%20parallel%0A%2F%2F%20%202%20-%20no%20description%20in%202Large%2C%20anywhere%0A%2F%2F%20%203%20-%20things%20that%20are%20discovered%20in%20a%20bar%20%28like%20the%20zigzag%0A%2F%2F%20general%20piece%29%20rarely%20have%20any%20validity%20or%20come%20to%20actual%0A%2F%2F%20existance.%0A4.%20b2-c4%20%0A4...%20g7-g6%20%0A%2F%2F%20maybe%20something%20a%20little%20different%20for%20this%20game%2C%20if%20I%20can%0A%2F%2F%20remember%20after%2034%20other%20games.%0A5.%20e3-e4%20%0A%2F%2F%20I%20would%20like%20to%20see%20you%20do%20another%20Shatranj%20variation%0A%2F%2F%20called%2C%20%27Strange%20Shatranj%27%20just%20for%20the%20hell%20of%20it%20because%20it%0A%2F%2F%20sounds%20fun.%0A5...%20h7-h6%20%0A%2F%2F%20How%20much%20stranger%20than%20Barroom%20and%20some%20of%20the%20Lem%20pieces%0A%2F%2F%20can%20I%20get%20%3F%0A6.%20d3-d4%20%0A%2F%2F%20Actually%2C%20I%20think%20the%20movements%20in%20those%20games%20are%20all%0A%2F%2F%20pretty%20commonsensical%20and%20represent%20a%20very%20natural%0A%2F%2F%20progression.%20Of%20course%2C%20they%20take%20getting%20used%20to%2C%20but%20so%20do%0A%2F%2F%20all%20pieces.%20True%2C%20they%20do%20belong%20to%20a%20relatively%20unfamiliar%0A%2F%2F%20class%20of%20pieces%20but%20they%20just%20don%27t%20seem%20very%20strange%20to%20me.%0A%2F%2F%20They%20feel%20like%20a%20breath%20of%20fresh%20air.%20I%20guess%2C%20to%20answer%20your%0A%2F%2F%20rhetorical%20question%2C%20you%20can%20get%20a%20lot%20stranger%2C%20obviously%21%20I%0A%2F%2F%20don%27t%20know%20how%20much%21%20A%20LOT%21%0A6...%20i8-i7%20%0A%2F%2F%20What%20did%20you%20think%20of%20Walkers%20and%20Jumpers%3F%20How%20would%20these%0A%2F%2F%20pieces%20go%2C%20on%20that%20board%2C%20under%20those%20rules%2C%20with%20these%20basic%0A%2F%2F%20moves...%20%3F%21%3F%0A7.%20a1-e1%20%0A%2F%2F%20Joe%2C%20I%20can%27t%20answer%20your%20questions%20about%20Walkers%20and%0A%2F%2F%20Jumpers%20because%20I%20really%20haven%27t%20examined%20it.%20It%27s%20still%20on%0A%2F%2F%20my%202do%20list.%0A%2F%2F%0A%2F%2F%20Meanwhile%2C%20ahem%2C%20I%20think%20I%20may%20have%20a%20bit%20of%20a%20bone%20to%0A%2F%2F%20pick%20with%20you.%20The%20zigzag%20general%20in%20Atlantean%20Barroom%0A%2F%2F%20Shatranj%20should%20have%20a%20z%20and%20not%20two%20parallel%20lines%2C%0A%2F%2F%20indicating%20that%20it%20is%20doomed%20to%20unidirectional%20movement%20as%0A%2F%2F%20with%20these%20grand%20shatranj%20pieces%20%28oliphant%20and%20lightnight%20war%0A%2F%2F%20machine%29%2C%20no%3F%20You%20are%20confusing%20me%20with%20your%20graphic%0A%2F%2F%20shorthand%20here%21%0A7...%20g6-g5%20%0A%2F%2F%20Ah%2C%20you%20are%20absolutely%20right%2C%20in%20some%20ways.%20I%20claim%20the%0A%2F%2F%20zigzag%20general%20does%20not%20actually%20exist.%20Look%20through%202Large%20-%0A%2F%2F%20there%20is%20no%20mention%20of%20it.%20So%20there%20can%27t%20actually%20be%20a%20piece%0A%2F%2F%20for%20it.%0A%2F%2F%20Okay%2C%20I%20admit%20to%20making%20a%20Double-Jumping%20General%2C%20and%20not%0A%2F%2F%20a%20ZigZag%20one%2C%20but%20I%20was%20trying%20to%20make%20a%20range%20of%20pieces%20to%0A%2F%2F%20cover%20every%20eventuality%2C%20which%20explains%20the%20totally%20unused%0A%2F%2F%20camel%20in%20the%20GS%20alfaerie%20pieces%2C%20and%20no%20ZZG.%20Since%20I%20hadn%27t%0A%2F%2F%20planned%20on%20using%20a%20double-jumping%20general%2C%20I%20used%20its%20icon%0A%2F%2F%20for%20the%20ZZG.%20And%20it%27s%20such%20a%20nice%20icon%20I%20hate%20to%20waste%20it.%0A%2F%2F%20Also%2C%20I%20think%20the%20%27Z%27s%20are%20a%20little%20feeble%20-%20I%27d%20like%20the%20top%0A%2F%2F%20and%20bottom%20cross-strokes%20of%20the%20%27Z%27%20to%20be%20exactly%20as%20they%20are%0A%2F%2F%20on%20the%20current%20ZZG%20piece.%20If%20you%20wish%2C%20you%20may%20think%20of%20it%20as%0A%2F%2F%20a%20Double-Crossing%20General%20instead%20of%20a%20zigzag%20one%2C%20%27cause%20it%0A%2F%2F%20cheats%21%20But%20the%20slanted%20downstroke%20looks%20really%20bad%20unless%0A%2F%2F%20the%20%27Z%27%20shape%20is%20huge.%20I%27m%20also%20deciding%20to%20use%20the%20DW%20icons%0A%2F%2F%20for%20the%20D%2BW%20piece%20in%20Lem%2C%20and%20so%20on.%20This%20saves%20me%20making%20a%0A%2F%2F%20whole%20buncha%20new%20pieces.%20Actually%2C%20it%20saves%20my%20son%20%5Bbut%20do%0A%2F%2F%20you%20think%20he%20appreciates%20it%3F%20Huh%3F%20rofl%5D%0A8.%20f4-g5%20%0A8...%20h6-g5%20%2F%2FPxP%0A%2F%2F%20Okay%2C%20you%27ve%20convinced%20me%20to%20go%20for%20all%20new%20pieces.%20I%0A%2F%2F%20actually%20feel%20the%20same%20way%20you%20do%2C%20that%20it%27s%20just%20too%0A%2F%2F%20confusing%20to%20have%20the%20same%20piece%20with%20different%20moves%20in%0A%2F%2F%20different%20games.%20Each%20new%20piece%20requires%20a%20new%20icon.%0A9.%20h4-f5%20%0A%2F%2F%20These%20pieces%20are%20all%20appropriate%20to%20this%20game%20though%2C%0A%2F%2F%20aren%27t%20they%3F%0A9...%20e8-e7%20%0A%2F%2F%20Yes%2C%20these%20%5Bnew%5D%20pieces%20were%20designed%20for%20this%20specific%0A%2F%2F%20game%2C%20as%20were%20great%27s.%20Only%20ABS%20has%20that%20little%20problem%2C%20but%0A%2F%2F%20I%20figured%20I%20wanted%20that%20piece%20more%20than%20the%20one%20you%20made%2C%20if%0A%2F%2F%20I%20could%20only%20have%20one%2C%20because%20it%27s%20more%20flexible.%20If%20it%20had%0A%2F%2F%20a%20Z%20on%20it%2C%20I%20could%20never%20use%20it%20in%20another%20game%20for%20a%0A%2F%2F%20non-bent%20piece.%20This%20way%2C%20by%20initially%20calling%20it%20the%20zigzag%0A%2F%2F%20general%2C%20and%20defining%20its%20move%20as%20bent%20allows%20me%20to%20cheat%2C%0A%2F%2F%20because%20when%20I%20use%20it%20as%20the%20double-jumping%20general%2C%20I%20can%0A%2F%2F%20point%20out%20the%20obvious%20design%20features%20that%20prove%20it%20was%20the%0A%2F%2F%20DJG%20all%20along%2C%20and%20only%20gets%20zigzag%20when%20he%27s%20drunk.%0A10.%20e1-e3%3B%20e3-e5%20%0A10...%20i9-h7%20%0A11.%20e5-e3%20%0A11...%20f7-f6%20%0A%2F%2F%20This%20looks%20like%20a%20decent%20move.%20I%20may%20hold%20off%20a%20bit%20on%0A%2F%2F%20tile-rider%2C%20until%20I%20get%20more%20time%20to%20look%20at%20it%20-%20I%27m%20playing%0A%2F%2F%20catch-up%20now%2C%20after%20losing%20a%20couple%20weeks.%20Hope%20all%27s%20well%0A%2F%2F%20with%20you.%0A12.%20e4-e5%20%0A%2F%2F%20Hi%20Joe.%20%3A-%29%0A12...%20c8-c7%20%0A%2F%2F%20Howdy.%0A13.%20g2-e4%20%0A%2F%2F%20Hi%2C%20Joe.%20I%20just%20dropped%20a%20big%20glass%20bottle%20of%20Jalapeno%0A%2F%2F%20Ranch%20dressing%20on%20my%20kitchen%20floor%20and%20spent%20about%20ten%0A%2F%2F%20minutes%20cleaning%20it%20up.%20Perhaps%20the%20freshness%20of%20this%0A%2F%2F%20experience%20will%20help%20me%20make%20a%20less%20sloppy%20move%20here%20in%20our%0A%2F%2F%20game.%0A13...%20g9-e8%20%2F%2Fdid%20you%20ever%20replace%20that%20bottle%3F%0A14.%20j1-f1%20%0A%2F%2F%20Would%20you%20believe%20I%20forgot%20about%20it%20last%20time%20I%20went%0A%2F%2F%20shopping%3F%21%20Thanks%20for%20the%20reminder.%20Jalapeno%20Ranch%20dressing.%0A%2F%2F%20I%20will%20feel%20much%20more%20comfortable%20once%20I%20replace%20it.%20I%20like%0A%2F%2F%20having%20options%20for%20my%20salad%20dressings%20and%20that%20one%20was%20good.%0A%2F%2F%20I%20wonder%20whether%20I%20can%20get%20my%20seven%20year%20old%20daughter%20to%20try%0A%2F%2F%20it%20out.%20She%20doesn%27t%20like%20things%20that%20are%20spicy%20but%20she%20likes%0A%2F%2F%20ranch%20dressing.%0A14...%20e7-e6%20%0A%2F%2F%20Luck%20with%20getting%20a%20kid%20to%20expand%20her%20food%20horizons%21%20There%0A%2F%2F%20are%20ways%2C%20depending%20on%20just%20what%20she%27s%20like%2C%20but%20it%20could%0A%2F%2F%20take%20some%20serious%20work.%0A15.%20f5-g3%20%0A15...%20d8-d7%20%0A%2F%2F%20You%20also%20seem%20to%20be%20in%20a%20decent%20position%20in%20this%20game.%0A%2F%2F%20Both%20sides%20appear%20to%20have%20good%20play%20here.%20There%20is%20one%20odd%0A%2F%2F%20thing%2C%20though.%20Once%20again%2C%20I%20have%20moved%20pawns%20almost%0A%2F%2F%20exclusively%20in%20the%20beginning%2C%2013%20of%2015%20turns.%20And%2C%20again%0A%2F%2F%20looking%20at%20the%20board%20and%20not%20the%20move%20list%2C%20you%20have%20made%205%0A%2F%2F%20pawn%20and%2010%20piece%20moves.%20Your%20move%20pattern%2Fratio%20is%0A%2F%2F%20reasonably%20normal%20chess%3B%20mine%20is%20not.%20I%20often%20play%20very%0A%2F%2F%20pawn-heavy%20openings%2C%20and%20I%20don%27t%20entirely%20know%20why%2C%20except%0A%2F%2F%20that%20it%20seemed%20reasonable%20to%20make%20each%20move%20at%20the%20time.%0A16.%20e5-f6%20%0A16...%20h7-f6%20%2F%2FNxP%0A17.%20e4-g5%20%0A17...%20j10-h10%20%0A%2F%2F%20I%20begin%20to%20see%20why%20you%20asked%20me%20about%20the%20relative%20values%0A%2F%2F%20of%20the%20ollie%20and%20the%20priestess.%20I%20gave%20values%20of%207%20and%2010%2C%0A%2F%2F%20but%20said%20I%20was%20unsure.%20The%20oliphant%20may%20be%20unde is not a recognized piece, coordinate, command, or subroutine.
For the sake of debugging, here is the full GAME Code program that this error occurred in. The lines have been properly indented to help you spot scope errors.
0 moveindex 0 1 %0A1.%20i2-h4%20%0A1...%20h8-h7%20%0A%2F%2F%20Here%20goes.%20Enjoy.%0A2.%20g3-g4%20%0A%2F%2F%20Don%27t%20you%20use%20the%20lightning%20war%20machine%20and%20the%20oliphant%0A%2F%2F%20in%20Lemurian%20Shatranj%20too%2C%20Joe%3F%20Or%20am%20I%20missing%20something%0A%2F%2F%20that%27s%20different%20about%20those%20pieces%3F%20Because%20those%20are%0A%2F%2F%20available%20in%20the%20Alfaerie%20-%20Many%20as%20well%20now%20you%20know%20and%20I%0A%2F%2F%20can%20create%20a%20Lemurian%20preset%20with%20those.%0A2...%20f8-f7%20%0A%2F%2F%20I%20thought%20I%27d%20answered%20this%20before%2C%20but%20you%20may%20be%20asking%0A%2F%2F%20a%20move%20rather%20than%20a%20piece%20question%2C%20so%20the%20pieces%20here%20move%0A%2F%2F%20twice%2C%20using%20either%20%27half%27%20of%20their%20basic%20move%20each%20time%2C%20so%0A%2F%2F%20a%20lightning%20warmachine%20%28best%20name%20I%20could%20come%20up%20with%20for%0A%2F%2F%20the%20letter%20%27L%27%20and%20that%20piece.%29%20could%20move%20as%20a%20dababbah%2C%0A%2F%2F%20then%20again%20as%20a%20dabbabah%2C%20moving%204%20squares.%20The%20Lemurian%0A%2F%2F%20pieces%20may%20only%20move%20as%20the%20two%20halves%20of%20their%20move%2C%20one%20at%0A%2F%2F%20a%20time.%20So%20a%20Lem%20dababba%20%5BD%26W%20rather%20than%20DW%20or%20D%2BW%5D%20may%0A%2F%2F%20slide%20one%3B%20jump%20two%3B%20slide%20one%20then%20jump%20two%3B%20or%20jump%20two%0A%2F%2F%20then%20slide%20one%20as%20its%20only%20moves.%20It%20only%20gets%20to%20use%20each%0A%2F%2F%20half%20of%20its%20move%20once%2C%20and%20can%20move%20a%20max%20of%203%20squares.%0A3.%20f3-f4%20%0A%2F%2F%20Do%20the%20Lemurian%20pieces%20have%20to%20move%20in%20the%20same%20direction%3F%0A%2F%2F%20I%20guess%20that%27s%20what%20the%20parallel%20lines%20indicate%20here%2C%20no%3F%0A%2F%2F%20Movement%20in%20the%20same%20direction%3F%20%28As%20opposed%20to%20the%20zigzag%0A%2F%2F%20lines%20of%20Atlantean%3F%29%0A3...%20g8-g7%20%0A%2F%2F%20I%27d%20actually%20thought%20of%20the%20lines%20as%20%272%27%20parallel%20lines%2C%0A%2F%2F%20indicating%20that%20the%20piece%20steps%20twice%2C%20but%20your%0A%2F%2F%20interpretation%20is%20actually%20equally%20as%20valid.%20So%20that%27s%20the%0A%2F%2F%20last%20piece%20in%20the%20chain%3A%20the%20zigzag%20general%20does%20not%20exist%21%0A%2F%2F%20%201%20-%20no%20actual%20piece%2C%20the%20lines%20are%202%20and%20parallel%0A%2F%2F%20%202%20-%20no%20description%20in%202Large%2C%20anywhere%0A%2F%2F%20%203%20-%20things%20that%20are%20discovered%20in%20a%20bar%20%28like%20the%20zigzag%0A%2F%2F%20general%20piece%29%20rarely%20have%20any%20validity%20or%20come%20to%20actual%0A%2F%2F%20existance.%0A4.%20b2-c4%20%0A4...%20g7-g6%20%0A%2F%2F%20maybe%20something%20a%20little%20different%20for%20this%20game%2C%20if%20I%20can%0A%2F%2F%20remember%20after%2034%20other%20games.%0A5.%20e3-e4%20%0A%2F%2F%20I%20would%20like%20to%20see%20you%20do%20another%20Shatranj%20variation%0A%2F%2F%20called%2C%20%27Strange%20Shatranj%27%20just%20for%20the%20hell%20of%20it%20because%20it%0A%2F%2F%20sounds%20fun.%0A5...%20h7-h6%20%0A%2F%2F%20How%20much%20stranger%20than%20Barroom%20and%20some%20of%20the%20Lem%20pieces%0A%2F%2F%20can%20I%20get%20%3F%0A6.%20d3-d4%20%0A%2F%2F%20Actually%2C%20I%20think%20the%20movements%20in%20those%20games%20are%20all%0A%2F%2F%20pretty%20commonsensical%20and%20represent%20a%20very%20natural%0A%2F%2F%20progression.%20Of%20course%2C%20they%20take%20getting%20used%20to%2C%20but%20so%20do%0A%2F%2F%20all%20pieces.%20True%2C%20they%20do%20belong%20to%20a%20relatively%20unfamiliar%0A%2F%2F%20class%20of%20pieces%20but%20they%20just%20don%27t%20seem%20very%20strange%20to%20me.%0A%2F%2F%20They%20feel%20like%20a%20breath%20of%20fresh%20air.%20I%20guess%2C%20to%20answer%20your%0A%2F%2F%20rhetorical%20question%2C%20you%20can%20get%20a%20lot%20stranger%2C%20obviously%21%20I%0A%2F%2F%20don%27t%20know%20how%20much%21%20A%20LOT%21%0A6...%20i8-i7%20%0A%2F%2F%20What%20did%20you%20think%20of%20Walkers%20and%20Jumpers%3F%20How%20would%20these%0A%2F%2F%20pieces%20go%2C%20on%20that%20board%2C%20under%20those%20rules%2C%20with%20these%20basic%0A%2F%2F%20moves...%20%3F%21%3F%0A7.%20a1-e1%20%0A%2F%2F%20Joe%2C%20I%20can%27t%20answer%20your%20questions%20about%20Walkers%20and%0A%2F%2F%20Jumpers%20because%20I%20really%20haven%27t%20examined%20it.%20It%27s%20still%20on%0A%2F%2F%20my%202do%20list.%0A%2F%2F%0A%2F%2F%20Meanwhile%2C%20ahem%2C%20I%20think%20I%20may%20have%20a%20bit%20of%20a%20bone%20to%0A%2F%2F%20pick%20with%20you.%20The%20zigzag%20general%20in%20Atlantean%20Barroom%0A%2F%2F%20Shatranj%20should%20have%20a%20z%20and%20not%20two%20parallel%20lines%2C%0A%2F%2F%20indicating%20that%20it%20is%20doomed%20to%20unidirectional%20movement%20as%0A%2F%2F%20with%20these%20grand%20shatranj%20pieces%20%28oliphant%20and%20lightnight%20war%0A%2F%2F%20machine%29%2C%20no%3F%20You%20are%20confusing%20me%20with%20your%20graphic%0A%2F%2F%20shorthand%20here%21%0A7...%20g6-g5%20%0A%2F%2F%20Ah%2C%20you%20are%20absolutely%20right%2C%20in%20some%20ways.%20I%20claim%20the%0A%2F%2F%20zigzag%20general%20does%20not%20actually%20exist.%20Look%20through%202Large%20-%0A%2F%2F%20there%20is%20no%20mention%20of%20it.%20So%20there%20can%27t%20actually%20be%20a%20piece%0A%2F%2F%20for%20it.%0A%2F%2F%20Okay%2C%20I%20admit%20to%20making%20a%20Double-Jumping%20General%2C%20and%20not%0A%2F%2F%20a%20ZigZag%20one%2C%20but%20I%20was%20trying%20to%20make%20a%20range%20of%20pieces%20to%0A%2F%2F%20cover%20every%20eventuality%2C%20which%20explains%20the%20totally%20unused%0A%2F%2F%20camel%20in%20the%20GS%20alfaerie%20pieces%2C%20and%20no%20ZZG.%20Since%20I%20hadn%27t%0A%2F%2F%20planned%20on%20using%20a%20double-jumping%20general%2C%20I%20used%20its%20icon%0A%2F%2F%20for%20the%20ZZG.%20And%20it%27s%20such%20a%20nice%20icon%20I%20hate%20to%20waste%20it.%0A%2F%2F%20Also%2C%20I%20think%20the%20%27Z%27s%20are%20a%20little%20feeble%20-%20I%27d%20like%20the%20top%0A%2F%2F%20and%20bottom%20cross-strokes%20of%20the%20%27Z%27%20to%20be%20exactly%20as%20they%20are%0A%2F%2F%20on%20the%20current%20ZZG%20piece.%20If%20you%20wish%2C%20you%20may%20think%20of%20it%20as%0A%2F%2F%20a%20Double-Crossing%20General%20instead%20of%20a%20zigzag%20one%2C%20%27cause%20it%0A%2F%2F%20cheats%21%20But%20the%20slanted%20downstroke%20looks%20really%20bad%20unless%0A%2F%2F%20the%20%27Z%27%20shape%20is%20huge.%20I%27m%20also%20deciding%20to%20use%20the%20DW%20icons%0A%2F%2F%20for%20the%20D%2BW%20piece%20in%20Lem%2C%20and%20so%20on.%20This%20saves%20me%20making%20a%0A%2F%2F%20whole%20buncha%20new%20pieces.%20Actually%2C%20it%20saves%20my%20son%20%5Bbut%20do%0A%2F%2F%20you%20think%20he%20appreciates%20it%3F%20Huh%3F%20rofl%5D%0A8.%20f4-g5%20%0A8...%20h6-g5%20%2F%2FPxP%0A%2F%2F%20Okay%2C%20you%27ve%20convinced%20me%20to%20go%20for%20all%20new%20pieces.%20I%0A%2F%2F%20actually%20feel%20the%20same%20way%20you%20do%2C%20that%20it%27s%20just%20too%0A%2F%2F%20confusing%20to%20have%20the%20same%20piece%20with%20different%20moves%20in%0A%2F%2F%20different%20games.%20Each%20new%20piece%20requires%20a%20new%20icon.%0A9.%20h4-f5%20%0A%2F%2F%20These%20pieces%20are%20all%20appropriate%20to%20this%20game%20though%2C%0A%2F%2F%20aren%27t%20they%3F%0A9...%20e8-e7%20%0A%2F%2F%20Yes%2C%20these%20%5Bnew%5D%20pieces%20were%20designed%20for%20this%20specific%0A%2F%2F%20game%2C%20as%20were%20great%27s.%20Only%20ABS%20has%20that%20little%20problem%2C%20but%0A%2F%2F%20I%20figured%20I%20wanted%20that%20piece%20more%20than%20the%20one%20you%20made%2C%20if%0A%2F%2F%20I%20could%20only%20have%20one%2C%20because%20it%27s%20more%20flexible.%20If%20it%20had%0A%2F%2F%20a%20Z%20on%20it%2C%20I%20could%20never%20use%20it%20in%20another%20game%20for%20a%0A%2F%2F%20non-bent%20piece.%20This%20way%2C%20by%20initially%20calling%20it%20the%20zigzag%0A%2F%2F%20general%2C%20and%20defining%20its%20move%20as%20bent%20allows%20me%20to%20cheat%2C%0A%2F%2F%20because%20when%20I%20use%20it%20as%20the%20double-jumping%20general%2C%20I%20can%0A%2F%2F%20point%20out%20the%20obvious%20design%20features%20that%20prove%20it%20was%20the%0A%2F%2F%20DJG%20all%20along%2C%20and%20only%20gets%20zigzag%20when%20he%27s%20drunk.%0A10.%20e1-e3%3B%20e3-e5%20%0A10...%20i9-h7%20%0A11.%20e5-e3%20%0A11...%20f7-f6%20%0A%2F%2F%20This%20looks%20like%20a%20decent%20move.%20I%20may%20hold%20off%20a%20bit%20on%0A%2F%2F%20tile-rider%2C%20until%20I%20get%20more%20time%20to%20look%20at%20it%20-%20I%27m%20playing%0A%2F%2F%20catch-up%20now%2C%20after%20losing%20a%20couple%20weeks.%20Hope%20all%27s%20well%0A%2F%2F%20with%20you.%0A12.%20e4-e5%20%0A%2F%2F%20Hi%20Joe.%20%3A-%29%0A12...%20c8-c7%20%0A%2F%2F%20Howdy.%0A13.%20g2-e4%20%0A%2F%2F%20Hi%2C%20Joe.%20I%20just%20dropped%20a%20big%20glass%20bottle%20of%20Jalapeno%0A%2F%2F%20Ranch%20dressing%20on%20my%20kitchen%20floor%20and%20spent%20about%20ten%0A%2F%2F%20minutes%20cleaning%20it%20up.%20Perhaps%20the%20freshness%20of%20this%0A%2F%2F%20experience%20will%20help%20me%20make%20a%20less%20sloppy%20move%20here%20in%20our%0A%2F%2F%20game.%0A13...%20g9-e8%20%2F%2Fdid%20you%20ever%20replace%20that%20bottle%3F%0A14.%20j1-f1%20%0A%2F%2F%20Would%20you%20believe%20I%20forgot%20about%20it%20last%20time%20I%20went%0A%2F%2F%20shopping%3F%21%20Thanks%20for%20the%20reminder.%20Jalapeno%20Ranch%20dressing.%0A%2F%2F%20I%20will%20feel%20much%20more%20comfortable%20once%20I%20replace%20it.%20I%20like%0A%2F%2F%20having%20options%20for%20my%20salad%20dressings%20and%20that%20one%20was%20good.%0A%2F%2F%20I%20wonder%20whether%20I%20can%20get%20my%20seven%20year%20old%20daughter%20to%20try%0A%2F%2F%20it%20out.%20She%20doesn%27t%20like%20things%20that%20are%20spicy%20but%20she%20likes%0A%2F%2F%20ranch%20dressing.%0A14...%20e7-e6%20%0A%2F%2F%20Luck%20with%20getting%20a%20kid%20to%20expand%20her%20food%20horizons%21%20There%0A%2F%2F%20are%20ways%2C%20depending%20on%20just%20what%20she%27s%20like%2C%20but%20it%20could%0A%2F%2F%20take%20some%20serious%20work.%0A15.%20f5-g3%20%0A15...%20d8-d7%20%0A%2F%2F%20You%20also%20seem%20to%20be%20in%20a%20decent%20position%20in%20this%20game.%0A%2F%2F%20Both%20sides%20appear%20to%20have%20good%20play%20here.%20There%20is%20one%20odd%0A%2F%2F%20thing%2C%20though.%20Once%20again%2C%20I%20have%20moved%20pawns%20almost%0A%2F%2F%20exclusively%20in%20the%20beginning%2C%2013%20of%2015%20turns.%20And%2C%20again%0A%2F%2F%20looking%20at%20the%20board%20and%20not%20the%20move%20list%2C%20you%20have%20made%205%0A%2F%2F%20pawn%20and%2010%20piece%20moves.%20Your%20move%20pattern%2Fratio%20is%0A%2F%2F%20reasonably%20normal%20chess%3B%20mine%20is%20not.%20I%20often%20play%20very%0A%2F%2F%20pawn-heavy%20openings%2C%20and%20I%20don%27t%20entirely%20know%20why%2C%20except%0A%2F%2F%20that%20it%20seemed%20reasonable%20to%20make%20each%20move%20at%20the%20time.%0A16.%20e5-f6%20%0A16...%20h7-f6%20%2F%2FNxP%0A17.%20e4-g5%20%0A17...%20j10-h10%20%0A%2F%2F%20I%20begin%20to%20see%20why%20you%20asked%20me%20about%20the%20relative%20values%0A%2F%2F%20of%20the%20ollie%20and%20the%20priestess.%20I%20gave%20values%20of%207%20and%2010%2C%0A%2F%2F%20but%20said%20I%20was%20unsure.%20The%20oliphant%20may%20be%20unde - %20a%0A%2F%2F%20point%20or%20so%2C%20because%20the%20double-jump%20is%20not%20considered.%20The%0A%2F%2F%20high%20priestess%20should%20be%20worth%20about%20as%20much%20as%20the%0A%2F%2F%20archbishop%2C%20no%3F%20That%27s%20about%207%2C%20so%2Cgive%20a%20point%20for%20the%0A%2F%2F%20jump%2C%20and%20you%20have%20the%20ollie%20and%20the%20priestess%20both%20worth%0A%2F%2F%20about%208...%0A18.%20g5-i6%20%0A18...%20f6-h7%20%2F%2F%20hmmm%2C%20I%20am%20down%20a%20pawn%20here...%0A19.%20h3-h4%20%0A19...%20j8-j7%20%2F%2F%20You%20seem%20to%20have%20developed%20an%20edge%20in%20this%20game.%0A20.%20i6-h5%20%0A20...%20i7-i6%20%0A21.%20h5-i4%20%0A21...%20h9-f7%20%0A22.%20g4-g5%20%0A22...%20f7-i4%20%2F%2FOxH%0A%2F%2F%20surprise%3F%20Happy%20Easter%21%0A23.%20j3-i4%20%0A%2F%2F%20That%20move%20did%20surprise%20me%20but%20it%20looks%20like%20a%20good%20move%0A%2F%2F%20for%20you.%0A23...%20b9-d8%20%2F%2F%20Now%2C%20if%20I%20can%20keep%20you%20from%20any%20good%20moves...%0A24.%20h4-h5 2 end
wrote on 'Falcon Chess Preset for Game Courier' states: 'When castling, the King is allowed to move to any free square between its original position and the Rook's original position. When the King moves only one square, you must enter a double move, such as K f1-g1; R j1-f1 or k f8-e8; r a8-f8.'
wrote on I am just crazy enough to mix Cannons and Bisons in the same variant. And invent positions like this one:
WHITE (to move and win) King(a3), Cannon(g1), Bison (g7)
BLACK King(b1), Cannon(a1)
After 1.CxC KxC the Bison will force mate in 3 more moves: g7-d6-f3-c4. If Black fails to capture the White Cannon, then the three White pieces will eventually force checkmate.
And so the position after 1.CxC KxC also serves as an example of a forced mate in 3 by a single Falcon. In general, a pair of Falcons should be able to mate a lone King. Even a pair of Knights can force a lone King into a corner and stalemate it - but they lack the ability to force checkmate.
wrote on 1. c2-c4
1... n b8-c6
2. c4-c5
2... n c6-e5
3. c5-c6
3... n e5-g6
4. c6-b7 // PxP
4... n i8-h6
5. b7-a8; Q-a8
I just ran this sample game to verify that Pawns promote to Queens (and presumably other pieces) in this rules enforcing preset. Clicking on the [Rules] button takes me to the 'Falcon Chess' page, where a 'Find promo' command results in several comments of a general nature and one example of a Pawn promoting to a Falcon. I am confused - in a game of 'Falcon Chess 100' between the same two players, George Duke writes:
// Right, in our 80-square FC, promotion only to RNBF,
// because R or F is interesting equal choice, depending on
// position. Here FC100 Queen promotion too if reaching that
// farther zone(Rules).
wrote on Hello Greg, Jeremy. Finally got a chance to look over this game. I really
like how your 'double-step' first pawn move is working out in this game.
It provides a whole new little element of conflict - very nice. It's
refreshing to see a game that likes its pawns. It gives an incentive to do
some early pawn maneuvering. I wonder if you could use the doublestep rule
throughout a game? At any time, one pawn anywhere may move 2 squares, or 2
pawns may move one square each. That small change should have an
interesting effect on the course of a game. Might have to restrict it to
big games though.
If you guys don't mind, I'd like to try to check in with a few more
comments as I can. One thing [of many] I'm interested in is the
'run-time' of the game. For no reason that I can articulate, since I've
never been able to make this kind of judgement before, I see the game as
lasting about 80 turns, +/- 20 turns. I'd expect to see at least half the
decently-played games lasting 60-100 turns. And there's no reason to
believe I'm right. But I'll bet a slice of pizza and a beer on it.
wrote on Hi, Andy. Actually, the pieces you mention are enhanced warmachines, the
combination of dabbabah and wazir, not just enhanced dabbabahs. The
warmachine may move as either a dabbabah [D] or as a wazir [W]. The
enhancements add to its movement abilities. The 1st enhancement is to
allow the piece to move as [either or] both D and W, linearly, in either
order. This piece I've called the hero. The bent hero is the 2nd
enhancement. It moves as [either or] both D and W, in either order, and
may change direction between steps. The 3rd is to make the DW a 2-step
rider; it moves as either D or W, then as either again, if desired,
linearly only. [And 1 step can be D and the other W; they don't have to
be the same.] This I called the lightning warmachine. Finally, and 4th,
the 2-step DW rider may change directions between steps. This is the
flexible knight, so-called because it can make knight and knight-like
moves as well as linear ones. These pieces were all named as pieces in
different games already posted, and I just used the names from those
games. That's a poor idea.
Graeme Neatham, in the other game of fort I'm playing, has suggested new
names for these pieces, and has given preliminary piece value estimates. I
will adopt the names for this variant, and suggest them as generic names
for the future. See comments for:
http://play.chessvariants.org/pbm/play.php?game=Fortress+Chess&log=joejoyce-cvgameroom-2007-93-286&userid=joejoyce
wrote on what's the difference between the flexible knight and the hero and all the other enhanced dabbabas?
wrote on White's 7th move is illegal on two counts. 1. He moves a black piece. 2. He checks the King with his second move but continues with other moves, including another check!
wrote on Well, obviously the square wasn't added.
And yes, I would like to try that variant. Trying to experiment almost all
kinds of variants lately.
wrote on Here is the first game of Actualized Potential Chess that we have played, this one using the Appearance Blocking Rule.
wrote on For those of you who find Shatranj Kamil as exciting as watching grass grow, I have used illegal moves to speed up the process here. First: 6 moves for White and 6 'mirror' moves for Black. Next 6 more moves for White, representing his goals for the opening phase of the game.
Points of Interest: Cannons are attacking Pawns in the initial setup, so precautions need to be taken before the Knights are moved. The Elephants on the h-file now defend the j-file Pawns. On the other side of the board ... Cannon(a10) x Pawn(a3) can be met by Elephant c4-a4, followed by Knight d4-b5. The best move for the trapped Cannon is: sacrifice itself for the Pawn(c3).
And what about that Ferz on f2? Will it serve any purpose in the game besides defending the Pawn on g3? One plan for the endgame is to move a Cannon to f1 and 'fire over the Ferz' to control 8 empty squares on the f-file. The Black King and one Elephant must stop on the f-file whenever they cross the board, which is a major headache.
wrote on Jeremy, Checking the [Exclude Pieces not in Setup:] box will spare the players (and onlookers) the delays involved in loading those 1200(?) images. Also, I think that some users would prefer to see all the chess pieces in standard (not flipped) orientation. Thanks for your work - my Shatranj Kamil on 100 squares Preset will be available soon.
wrote on Good question. Let's go with this: in the case of a discovered check, there is no Pawn drop because the checking piece has not moved. In a double check, the checking piece that has moved gets the Pawn drop as usual, thereby blocking the second checking piece. That make sense?
wrote on How about discovered checks and double checks ?
wrote on Interesting ending! Even a pair of Woody-Rooks could mate here - sometimes an unblockable shortrange attack is the most useful thing to have. Joe, this website allowed you to post a 'Long&Short of it' thread, but it will not allow replies (because of the illegal '&' symbol).
wrote on Jeremy: please adjust your 'TenCubed Chess' preset to Sides: White Black and Side: White.
And as long as you are in the preset, I think that the dark squares would look better with Colors: FFFFFF 888888
wrote on Jeremy: the board looks fine now. I plan on taking at least 36 hours per move, in order to justice to this complex game. I agree with the rule allowing a King to move into check, stay in check, or be exposed to a discovered check during the sequence of moves that make up a single turn. For example, in our last game - Black King captures the White Knightrider [placing the Black King in check again] followed by Black Queen captures White Queen - would have saved the game, if only you had been allowed enough moves to clear a path for the Black Queen.
wrote on Oddly when I try to move my pawn from h2-h4, I get a message saying, 'You may not move your pawn from e2 to e4 :( A bug in there somewhere?
wrote on hmm, it's not letting me do the cannon move Queen takes Rook. Isn't this a legal move?
[edit: I read over the rules and apparently you can only make forward cannon moves]
wrote on Okay, David, that's what we'll do then. I fixed the problem, I hope, or at least I tried to fix it. You'll let me know, I trust, if I haven't.
wrote on ..
wrote on Apparently this board is still set at 18 units wide (a - r). This is causing problems with the display, especially when it is Black's turn to move. I propose using these rules:
first turn 4/8 moves, progressive rules for later turns
even a single capture removes the giant ferz
even a single check endangers the giant wazir, and must be countered to avoid mate.
wrote on To see what actually happened in this game, you will have to switch white's third and fourth rows around. Same with first and second rows, with exception of giant wazir.
wrote on Unfortunately, this game will now look nonsensical because I've changed the third and fourth rows of white to match black's. To see the game, just switch white's third and fourth rows around. Same with first and second rows, with exception of giant wazir.
wrote on Yes, if you can force my Queen to stop on the 11th and 12th ranks, then there is no checkmate. I took the Knightrider mate you were kind enough to point out to me and adapted it to a Knightrider support of a Queen mate. Note that my Rook (next to my King) has an important role: preventing you from playing a 1-move Knightrider mate on the 'giant square' directly in front of the Rook.
WILD GUESS at piece values: Ferz=1, Wazir=1, Guard=2, Knight=3. Clearly Knightriders and Queens are powerful attacking pieces. I think that Rooks are stronger than Bishops (no surprise there), but a solitary Ferz can race forward at a steady 2 squares per move and provide the forward line of defense we now know to be crucial in this game. Even with elongated moves, a solitary Wazir advances 2+1+1+2+1+1.
How big is the increase in value when a player forms an aggregates? Well, a Queen may be worth as much as 3 Wazirs plus 3 Knights (that can never form a Rook or a Knightrider). Bad luck for a player to get reduced to 3 of one piece.
wrote on Originally, I was going to play m13-l12 and r13-q11 instead of o16-n15. But I got greedy and wanted to form an extra guard rider as well as a nightrider. As it happened, I could form neither. I think this would have saved the game for me though. Right?
wrote on Yes. That is checkmate. Well done, David.
wrote on Turn 10 checkmate, because the White Guards on k13 and k14 can only be captured by giant pieces.
If the the Black King captures the White Queen, then 3 more moves are required to eliminate all Knight checks.
If the the Black King captures the White Knightrider, then 3 more moves are required: h13-h11; g13-h12; [Black Queen captures White Queen].
My hypothetical comments two days ago have nothing to do with this mate. Many thanks for the game!
wrote on David, in this game, kings can't be captured; they can only be checked, though they can be checked multiple times. The goal is checkmate, not capture. I don't say that explicitly (perhaps I should?) because I thought it was implied by my reference to the modified moderate progressive rules. Apologies if I may have misled you.
wrote on 'Square Tiling Rider Shatranj' is a perfectly good name for the 16x16 game - it is still your variant, after all. Looking forward to a game with you - but I may wait until next week to begin. I am in a kind of opposite situation to you, with MIR CHESS 36 having started out as the simple idea of an 8x8 version of SHAKO, but my refinement MIR CHESS 32 added several original touches.
'My heart says yes, but my mind says no.' Trust your mind - note how easy it is to move an aggregate to a location adjacent to your opponent's royal piece, so any 'jump off the aggregate bus' rule would allow (part of) the royal piece to be captured in the same game turn.
wrote on Back to my rules about aggregates and their units, I think if you were
going to go with the idea that units could move after their aggregates
have moved, you'd have to say that all four units can't simply form into
a brand new aggregate. That would just be too absurdly deadly. Why, if that
rule applied, the first person to form a nightrider aggregate could probably simply mop up the board, so you'd have to have a rule, probably a strict one
about what would constitute a legitimate new aggregate for a piece to move
into. But again, my mind is telling me, don't let those units go after the
aggregate has moved.
Save that idea for another time and place. Sometimes I even listen to my
mind even though 'the heart has its reasons of which reason knows
nothing.' Maybe I'll call it Blaise Pascal Chess if it ever fructifies.
wrote on David, I really love your idea and I will try to create a giant ferz and add it to Alfaerie - Many and create a preset for it. I will send you a challenge. We could call it Paulowich Tiling Rider Shatranj. How does that sound?
wrote on David, I was just going to kibbitz the following when I saw you'd just
posted your idea. I'll respond to your idea later after I have time to
look at it, but meanwhile, here are some thoughts and questions about
Tiling Rider Chess:
I thought of an interesting rule that I had not specified in my rules for
this game. I had already addressed the question, 'Can an aggregate form
and then move during the same turn?' Yes, and for some reason, I like
that rule, I think because of the golem like quality of pieces coming to
life from the dust. But I had not thought of the reverse, 'Can a part of
an aggregate move after that aggregate has moved during the same turn?'
My heart says yes, but my mind says no. What do you think? lol. If it were
yes, then that would beg the further question: 'Can an aggregate form then
move, and then part of it move?' Again, my heart says yes, but my mind
says no. What do you think? If yes, then theoretically a piece could move
into an aggregate, move as an aggregate, then move into a different
aggregate, move as an aggregate, and then move out of it, etc. A piece
could move a lot if it could jump in and out of aggregates.
wrote on I am tempted to place a nonroyal Giant Ferz on k1, k2, l1, l2 (also k15, k16, l15, l16) and then remove the a1-a16 and b1-b16 columns from the board. This results in a 16x16 variant giving each player 14 copies of each small piece. The (NEW) a1 to p16 diagonal will be shades of blue - which matches the 'black' squares in standard 8x8 chess. The (NEW) locations of the royal giants match that in the 8x8 Shatranj setup.
I am unsure which player actually has an advantage under my proposed 4/8 moves rule. That sounds like fun!
wrote on David, the asymmetries were unintentional. lol. I'm going to make it more symmetrical.
wrote on David, I think that's the way it ought to be. I will implement that. Thanks for the very useful suggestion! :-)
wrote on You asked for comments:
Your variant reminds me slightly of highly symmetric 9x9 variants, but in fact this 18x18 setup has different pieces on the the 'i' and 'j' files - and the 13th row matches the 3rd row while the 12th row matches the 4th row. This lack of symmetry seems to be a small advantage for Black. Here is a rules change to help Black some more in future games. TURN ONE: White makes exactly 4 moves and Black makes exactly 8 moves. TURN TWO: regular rules apply, with White moving up to 9 times and Black moving up to once more than White.
wrote on I suppose Black moved a Berolina Pawn on move 5. Larry, you need to bring Black's last LEGAL MOVE up in the display line and press the 'Go' button (where the 'View' button is when you are looking at someone else's game). Next, retype your previous move in the usual line and add a note telling your opponent why his move was illegal.
wrote on Actually, this game has been invented before and is even on this site, but it is also rather well hidden here (we never have figured out how to properly index the modest variant pages). There is also a ZRF file for it.
wrote on My first kibbitz! Illegal move. How do you back up?
wrote on I plan to delete this game by the end of the month.
wrote on Apparently the game settings did not allow players to 'save up' unused time, which eventually resulted in a time forfeit. I don't know any way to restart this game.
wrote on Since Greg has gone out of town for a week and a half, we mightn't be able to continue for a while though the last time he did this, he did end up having pretty good computer access, he has indicated he might not wish to use it this time even if he should have it. Marco, white is Stephen Stockman. Red is Joe Joyce. Light blue is me. Dark blue is Greg Strong. Dark blue and light blue are playing against red and white. Since PBM, as far as I know, doesn't allow more than two players to enter their moves, Greg is sending his moves to me to enter and Joe is sending his moves to Stephen to enter.
wrote on Wait, whose playing what color?
wrote on whopps i castled into chcek. need do over. lol.
wrote on Something occured to me while I was trying to move pieces around on the
Hyperchess board. If we follow all rules concerning movements except the
King's hold rule, and we flip the little squares and the big squares: the
resulting game would be exactly the same (except for the interesting
starting array.) If we are to apply the King's hold, it will be in
reverce: if both kings are on the same little square the king there first
can't get out of it unless to another big square. The pawn protection
rule will work beautifully as well. Following the notion of the little
square and big square being two sides of a coin, I believe the King's
hold should apply to both of them; it produces interesting tactics : one
of the kings can try to hold the other from the very beginning of the game
without (at least apparently) getting too close to the enemy. This can work
in W&J as well, but I am not sure how to represent the walkers' moves in
the reversed board.
HyperCazyHouse is an interesting varint, pawn can't be dropped if the sum
of the first and third digit is 1 or 8. Or Atomic HyperChess, where pieces
explode when captured removing every piece (but not pawns) on the adjacent
squares, both big and little.
HyperShatranj (which you're already playing in the game courier) looks
good.
(sorry for not waiting till the move, I wanted to write this before I
forget it.)
wrote on oops, i realize there is a mistake at move 20... when black's d5 Pawn mysteriously disappears.
wrote on thanks for the game, i think it was about even until you captured my Knight. Anyway, I think I like this combined variant better than either extinction or brotherhood chess on their own. If you'd like a rematch just let me know.
wrote on i should also point out that a pawn reaching the last rank promotes on the first part of the move, before moving back one space.
wrote on Attention Peter, you still have to make the first move in this game, regards, steve
wrote on Hey, Greg. The king, knights and pawns are all standard FIDE-style pieces, with the king able to castle with the D+W. The 3 non-standard piece-types, those with center-of-piece symbols, are linear pieces that move as either or both of their components. They may all slide 1 and/or jump 2 squares [or jump 2 then slide 1]. Well, that's not strictly accurate. The D+W moves orthogonally 1, 2, or 3 squares. The A+F moves diagonally 1, 2 or 3. The 'queen' [extended jumping general] moves as either of the other two pieces, but cannot move partly as one and partly as the other. So it moves 1, 2, or 3 squares either orthogonally or diagonally. None of the pieces may change directions. At some point I hope to have the center symbols enclosed in a square to differentiate these pieces from Great Shatranj pieces [which only move 1 or 2] and Lemurian Shatranj pieces, which may move up to 3, but which can change directions during the move. [The first 2 pieces, D+W and A+F, are also found in Chieftain Chess.] Abdul wanted to try some of the shatranj leapers in a CWDA setting, so we've been experimenting.
wrote on Hmmm... so, how do the black pieces move?
wrote on Mr. Stockman, I realized I made a mistake when setting up this game. I meant for the game to be one where you have up to a week to make a move, but instead I accidently made a blitz game: A week for all moves.
This was not my intention. I would like to play you at schoolbook, but I would rather play at a much slower pace. A week for the entire game is far too fast for anyone to make the best move possible.
Is is OK if I delete this game and start another Schoolbook game with you before we play Deluxe Chess?
OK, since I normally only play slow games and you normally play fast games, I don't think I'll be able to play Deluxe Chess with you. :(
- Sam
wrote on in answer to your question about the rules, yes, a piece can move across the board as if it was circular, so my bishop, for example, at h4 could reach a5 (via e1).
wrote on Hi, does anybody know whether white's last move was in accordance with the rules of dynamo chess? I'd appreciate your help with this matter.
wrote on what seems odd to me is that a piece can push/pull another piece without moving itself...
wrote on You're right, Abdul; I missed that move. Apparently the only thing white
can do in this game is play N -> f3 as the first move, and use the other
knight to block the oliphant should it check the king from b4. I do think
you need to back down the power of the shooters for an 8x8. Or keep them
the same but go to 10x10 facing a Grand Chess setup, maybe. The FIDE
pieces have such a tough time in this game that I think it might be a good
idea to make the pawns for the shooters strictly 1-step shatranj pawns to
give the FIDEs a chance if we stick with this setup.
wrote on The Shooters are obviously too powerful in the opening. You can play : 1... Zh4+ and nothing can stop 2.. Zxe4 mate. I am thinking of a Wazir-Dabbabah-(3,0)leaper for the rooks (WDH in the funny notation), and a digonal counterpart for the bishops (FAG in the funny notation), and the Queen is again a combination of the two.
wrote on This game should be deleted from the logs: Dan only lost because he has been having technical problems with figuring out how to use the Game Courier interface.
- Sam
wrote on [deleted]
wrote on interesting game, bogot has my number in the game i'm playing him, but i think u got something going here tho gary
wrote on I have written an interesting page on the opening.
wrote on ha ha, i read your last comment joe, it is really a joke question, asking 2 chess players in mid-battle, 'so, who's winning' :)
wrote on so, who's winning :)
wrote on I think White's next move would have been to bring the Coordinator up from h1 to h5, followed by g2-h2. What White has worried about mostly, lately, is a meandering of Black's King over to the Leaper at h7.
wrote on Thanks. Back when I made the sacrifice I wasn't entirely sure it would pay off... Good game.
wrote on Sorry, I didn't notice your question from a few moves back. No, there is no castling in this game. I hope you enjoy your first try at this game! It is actually rather elegant in its own right, but quite a bit unlike orthodox Chess.
wrote on Hi, this is my first try on this game :)
wrote on this preset is not letting me castle. can someone please see if there's a bug, or advise me what to type in.
wrote on Gee Bee and I are having trouble getting this game to the position prior to my illegal move. With his agreement, I am deleting the game and will reinvite him to start again.
wrote on cheers.
wrote on Sorry, Carlos, it should be working now. (Actually, it was letting you promote to a White piece.)
wrote on it won't let me promote to a queen (or a bishop). i'm allowed to promote, right? could you have a look to see if there's a bug, fergus?
wrote on Thank you. First time and a bit confused. Will read rules more
carefully.
Thanks again.
Jeju
wrote on That Spider move of black's is not legal. Spiders move only 1 space at a time. Crabs also move one space. Snakes move 2 spaces. Also, if you move from DimensionX to Fide you must move to the same relative square, e.g., E4-e4; F5-f5; etc. and visa-versa.
wrote on fergus,
this game log has somehow recorded the wrong winner.
wrote on Another possible tactic I did not think of before is trying to capture two different defended pieces (one on each board) with two twins on the same turn, thereby winning a piece (or pair of pieces) in the exchange.
wrote on your move should have been entered as d2-d3. either player can fix this on your next move by adding ;P d2- to your move
wrote on if u cant get the game to start, enter your userid and password at the top of the game logs page, then click 'submit', click on the link with your name on it and press continue then enter your move
wrote on Castling comes from Fergus Duniho's Grotesque Chess: The king may castle two or three squares towards the rook on the kingside, and two, three, or four squares towards the rook on the queenside. The rook leaps over the king to land besides the king. The king can not castle out of, through, or in to check. Both the king and rook that the king castles with must not have previously moved.
wrote on i don't really want to bring attention to this board, but does someone want to confirm this is checkmate?
wrote on Yep, I just didn't foresee that drop move, well-played
wrote on woooooah look at that, Dr.Who is out of the tardis!!
wrote on well that is not very fair
wrote on Black is using a Bishop... it should be a Dragon Horse... Can move like King or Bishop.
wrote on The Knight-Pawn has the curious property of moving backwards to the first
row (when moving like a Knight) so that it can become subject to en
passant capture, over and over again.
When moving like a pawn, it can leap forward to the center of the board.
No matter how many times the Knight-Pawn retreats to the 1st rank (by
making Knight moves), it can leap forward to the 3rd, 4th, or 5th rank by
making a multi-square move forward.
wrote on Ups! What I just told you is not true! Because you could capture my Swapper if it goes to e1. Excuse me!
wrote on I was thinking about the move order. And this alternative: Player 1 moves white, the Player 2 moves BLACK on the SAME board, then white on the second board, then Player 1 moves black on the second board and white on the first. Wouldn't this be more logical than the move order I've implemented here?
wrote on The point of a Warp point 'not being capturable' is to allow it to
penetrate the opponent's lines... acting sort of as a dangerous Star
Gate.
Logical play would be to have one forward Warp point (deep into enemy
lines) and one back Warp Point. So I think Warp Points should not be
captureable. However- If a Medusa piece (or 2?) were added to each side,
then a player could use that to turn-off the Warp Point function [while the
Medusa]was adjacent to any enemy warp point. The Medusa would (like the
one in Mini POM) could freeze and capture pieces, but in regard to Warp
Points, could only turn them off.
wrote on Note that if a K + Q were against a lone King, that lone King could not
Time Travel as he is required to have a friendly piece or pawn... so in
these cases a King could not just venture off to escape mate.
In general:
(1) When your last piece or pawn is taken, and you have only a King Time
Traveling then he will be Lost In Time (a game loss).
(2) If you have a piece(s) and or pawn(s) but have no legal moves, then
even if you have a Time Traveling King the game is drawn.
In summary - If you have no material and a Time Traveling King - you can
lose due to a Loss in Time condition. If you have material, but no legal
moves (such as a blocked pawn) you will have a draw.
wrote on On black's move 5 is white in check, or not so since Cd5 is occupied? Funny for me to ask as the inventor of this variant, but pieces are supposed to migrate from boards A - B - C and back to A again using Alice Chess rules. So if you were just to focus on boards B and C, and thought of it as an Alice Chess game, is Black in check? We had both thought so, but my opponent now thinks otherwise. Why? Because the occupation of Cd5 means that the bishop couldn't capture the king on his next move and checkmate implies that possibility (of being able to capture your opponent's king on your next move).
wrote on what happens when I have no legal moves?
wrote on I have followed your game, but now you have lost me. I hope you don't think that the Mastodon can move like a knight. Best regards, Mats.
wrote on It's an elegant idea. I like it.
wrote on Well, no, you can't actually capture an opponent King, only checkmate. But the idea is that check only occurs when in fact the King could be captured on the next turn. Since an enemy King on top of a friendly King could not be captured, the enemy King in that position cannot be in check.
wrote on That carries the implication that it is possible for a King to be captured in heaven but the rules specify that wins take place when a king is checkmated in either heaven or hell. Can kings in heaven be captured and sent to hell? (If so, that would complicate Limbo Chess tremendously, hehe.)
wrote on The rule about the King on King is based on prevention of suicide. If your opponent's King in Heaven is directly on top of your King in Hell, a capture of the opponent King would simultaneously capture your own King, which is verboten. So it's treated as not being a check, although if the friendly King in Hell moves to a different square a check is uncovered.
wrote on I was in dread as the moment drew nigh. I think, in retrospect, sending my king away on the first move like that was reckless and inadvisable. I feel lucky to have been able to squeak through that mess.
wrote on Is the middle board limbo?
*************Yes.
If a piece is captured on the middle board, I understand that it goes into reserve. How is that represented graphically?
*************It's represented as the piece that you've captured except in your own color. Put it on any gray space behind your side. I suggest putting it behind heaven (but if space runs out there, behind one of the other gray spaces.) This will become clear in the course of play, I expect. It's easier to show than describe what happens to dropped pieces.
When it's re-inserted, does it go to the far right board (i.e., is that heaven)?
*************The blue board is heaven. Yes, and re-insertion of a piece (which can only be done in heaven) counts as a move.
And what happens when a piece is captured there, or on the first board (which I'm guessing is hell)?
*************Pieces in hell disappear, as in your Heaven and Hell Chess.
*************Well, as you say, it's a work in progress and there may be some fine points that still need to be worked out. I notice in your Heaven & Hell there is a rule, 'A King that is directly above an opponent King can never be in check.' Why? Can you explain that rule to me?
wrote on Oops, meant to let you go first. How does the third board fit in? I did not see a game description for Ibu Ibu Alice Alice chess. I think I can figure out the two board Alice variant but for the three board I better get some direction first. Do the pieces rotate from board one to two, then two to three, then three to one, and if so must all three corresponding squares on the boards be vacant, or just the two (moving & destination) at issue?
wrote on Okay, here we go. I need a better understanding of the game mechanics, understanding that this is a work in progress. Is the middle board limbo? If a piece is captured on the middle board, I understand that it goes into reserve. How is that represented graphically? When it's re-inserted, does it go to the far right board (i.e., is that heaven)? And what happens when a piece is captured there, or on the first board (which I'm guessing is hell)? Sorry for all the questions, but I do like the basic limbo idea and am trying to get a better sense of how captures operate.
wrote on Remember the piece from the past
wrote on for reference:
Queen 9 pts
Rook 5
Knight 3
Bishop 3
Pawn 1
King 0
wrote on Jeremy, thanks for making a preset for TenCubed Chess! Only actual play will determine if I have successfully merged two variants into one enjoyable game.
As for the question Joe asked at the end of this game, I suspect that the General is not strong enough to beat a Knight in the endgame. This seems reasonable, as the endgame K+R versus K+N is usually a draw. In fact, I cannot find a winning strategy for King and Dragon Horse versus King and Knight. I set up Zillions to play this endgame against itself on a slow setting, with no progress being made after 60 moves. That is somewhat shocking, as I consider the Dragon Horse to be worth a pair of Knights.
wrote on Mats did a great job programming this preset. Automatically, the Elk converts to its dark square and light square components!
wrote on Hi, Matthew. I've changed to a darker tone. Let me know if you like it okay.
wrote on The colors are being displayed in such a way that the chessboard is very
hard to see. The squares ought to alternate between two colors, not
three. Is there any way you can fix the colors? I think that people
interested in learning how to play Knight-pawn Chess will be turned off if
they are presented with a chessboard whose colors alternate between white
and pale-white. Similarly, a chessboard whose colors alternate between
'light pink' and 'cream-white' isn't much better.
(Or maybe it's just my PC, and I shouldn't expect reliable graphics when
I am trying to use Windows to get here.)
wrote on Namik, you should not have changed your Rook into a Knight, but I will ignore this because I am taking it.
wrote on I have no Idea how to make a Random Army, it alwayd starts with the FIDEs. So, please anyone don't accept the invitation.
wrote on Jon, u have to make the first move cuz u picked the white armies, email me at taurusgaming@aol.com if u are having a problem
wrote on Isleno, you have to make the first move cuz u picked white armies. email me at taurusgaming@aol.com if your having a problem
wrote on I did not mean to leave my Bishop en prise. Oh well.
wrote on I did not mean to leave my Bishop en prise. Oh well.
wrote on Namik-
The rules tab above will link you to the zrf page which states the
following:
'This game was designed for greater speed and to eliminate White's
opening advantage. After White's first move, Pawns may advance any
distance down a vacant file. En passant captures may be made on any square
passed.'
wrote on Namik-
The rules tab above will link you to the zrf page which states the
following:
'This game was designed for greater speed and to eliminate White's
opening advantage. After White's first move, Pawns may advance any
distance down a vacant file. En passant captures may be made on any square
passed.'
wrote on I think I'll try mini-pillars instead...
wrote on so black should have a theoretical advantage then, correct? Not sure how you could re-work the rules to eliminate that problem.
wrote on 17...c1-f4 with the double check, I think, would have been mate for me! No?
wrote on Hi, Jeremy, Hi, Namik: Hey, cute game, cute board & icons. You could use some of my little martian figures from the Jetan Piece Graphics. Wouldn't they look a little more Egyptian? Glad you like my little guys.
wrote on The Medusas can do more than freeze adjacnet pieces. From the rules:
' The Medusa, in addition to capturing pieces, will 'turn
adjacent-square pieces to stone.' '
wrote on I just realized something weird about this game. On the 10th turn the second player can leave a black piece en prise to be taken when he moves next as white, on the 20th turn the first player can do the same thing, and so on. This seems to leave the black army at an extreme disadvantage, though I'm not sure where it leaves the players...probably very confused.
wrote on In some games (like maybe Othello), it seems that conquest of the corners is the thing to try to achieve, don't you think? That's sort of opposite. Also, speaking of 'opposites' - I wonder how the center is affected in toroidal variants, such as my toric cat pack - 'flying kittens' series - where opposite edges as well as opposite squares are tied together. My latest invention along these lines is called 'master squares' and involves a series of linkages between not just opposite corners, but each opposite set of four - six squares (depending on whether the square is in the corner or the middle).
wrote on Jeremy, you are correct about 'outflanking' in Go, and that the 'center' concept is not a real issue. In Go there are often many independent skirmishes. Lines 'live' and 'die.' Surround and conquer is the method of battle... the lack of individual piece movement is what keeps Go out of the CV category, in my opinion, of course.
wrote on Here is another approach to the same idea: In this version, the space generators (symbolized by Squares) can not capture but can be captured. However, the space remover (symbolized by the circle) can not be captured nor can it capture (it can however be temporarily trapped by being surrounded by opposing pieces since it can only move to an empty space that exists). Sound like fun? Then playtest it with me! :-)
wrote on Who wants to try out this newish idea inspired by variants like Choiss and voidrider? The squares are space generators. The circles are space removers. You can either move a piece or move a generator. The remover removes which ever square it just visited. I'm interested in playtesting this game with someone clever who might be able to suggest ways of making it more playable while we try it out together. In this version, space generators and space removers are not able to capture or be captured. They move like guards (non-royal kings). The space remover removes what ever square it just left, but can only move to squares that exist.
wrote on Gary, this may possibly be one of the central differences between chess and Go. In chess variant, the conflict tends to be defined as revolving around centers. Not so, I think, in Go, which relies on outflanking. (Or am I wrong?)
wrote on I think the same can safely be said for Alice Chess and Double-Bug House. But for many large war games (and some very large board games) I think the game board can be divided into several battlezones, each of which have their own center-of action. These 'virtual centers' can shift and can even dissapear. But this scenario, I believe, is more applicable to (or at least more typical of) Avalon Hill type war simulation games.
wrote on 'Some might look at [Seenschach] as having two centers.' Interesting observation, Gary! :-)
wrote on There is a variant called Seenschach, where there is a huge gaping hole in the center. Seenschach was created by the great chess variants scholar and inventor Joerg Knappen, and some very powerful and unusual pieces like crooked bishops and reflecting bishops and pandas find ways to navigate around the corners. There is also a variant called Black Hole Chess where just the very center square is cut out.
wrote on In his essay on Doublewide Chess, Betza asks the question (somewhat facetious?) where is 'the' center point in FIDE chess? His answer is that it varies depending on the game.
wrote on For USCF chess e4, d4, e5, d5 are considered to be (and are mathematically) the center squares. They can be controlled from a distance of course... or indirectly via some threat. I believe you are aware of this, but I make the comment for the benefit of a new player who may happen by.
wrote on Neither here nor there this is but I was just, on the other hand, reading about Betza's observations of 'Doublewide Chess' one of the subheadings being, 'Where's the Center?'
wrote on Ahem.
wrote on Control of center is indeed important. But some unorthodox players, such as Michael Basman will abandon the center - or rather delay its occupation by starting out on one or both sides and then later pinching the center. In Cannons of Chesstonia players can move a Cannon back and forth and simply avoid movement on the 8x8 portion board... thus avoiding central occupation as well as occupation of either flank. I think that this lack of development could proove itself harmful, should the opponent of such a plan avoid serious error.
wrote on In my remark about my first move, I say, 'control' is key in most variants. Well, I meant 'control of center' (in most variants with which I'm familiar, not just FIDE).
wrote on I completely missent the move 22... Can you rewind the game 1 move? 33 seconds ago, ...
wrote on Mr.Michael Madsen
I was glad to see you in last Korean chess game.
Thank you so enjoy time with you.
Your 3move b3-g3 was not bad move.
This move is one of the first-attacking plan in Janggi offense.
But,4move g3-g7 was so bad.And so you lost this *PO* was painful....
If you played another move,this game would go another way,may be.
Thank you.
Jung-Bin Song
From Tokyo.
wrote on I think I made a correct 13th move (as Black). I'd appreciate a second eye though, if someone wants to have a gander at the situation.
wrote on Matthew, could you comment a little on the suicide rule? When did it become part of the game? It's not a rule I remember from the mid-late 60's, when I originally learned to play. In fact, I played our games without realizing it could be done (as I merely refreshed myself on the moves and did not read the full rules text). The special leaper rule seems familiar, too: stopping after a capture. Were these rules a feature of the first or second version, or maybe a popular variant back when it first came out? The name I knew was Ultima; I never heard of Baroque until recently.
wrote on I think that somewhat earlier White could have presented Black with considerable difficulty with moves like h2-h3 (bringing the Leaper over from g1 to h2) or b2-b6, followed by a general advance of the Immobilizer.
wrote on I'll be awaiting you, David!
wrote on Sad to say, I do not have the free time to start any new games here. I mostly play on Game Courier from December to March, each year.
wrote on Great play !!
wrote on This preset should register 'Checkmate' I believe, but doesn't, as you can see from the above position where I was checkmated.
wrote on forgot to note RxR+ for move 34...
wrote on oops, I meant check not ++ for move 29
wrote on Thanks for playing, Namik. If you'd like a rematch just let me know.
wrote on I hope you enjoy closed positions Fergus! I noticed the other Templar game being played is also closed. In my testing with Zillions, by the way, open positions were much more common, but I guess that's mostly due to Zillions' agressive playing style.
One of my ideas for Templar chess is allowing the Templar to promote to a piece that moves as a Bishop plus Dabbaba-rider. This should provide incentive both to keep Templars in the game and use them more offensively. Though I have yet to test the idea.
wrote on Typing the word 'drawn' for your move should work.
wrote on We have agreed to a draw, and so how do we end the game?
wrote on I realized earlier when you made a Knight-move with your King that there is no extra piece to represent the Royal Knight. We'll just have to remember.
wrote on Right, David. That's clearly what he meant. Thank you.
wrote on Oh, right. Sorry. I misread your first comment to say legal. Sorry.
wrote on White's 12th move is illegal. Fission cannot be used for capturing.
wrote on 'Suppose that White's Bishops and Knights are exchanged...'
It appears that Betza intended a sort of Chess With Different Armies variant, with the Black pieces on their usual squares.
wrote on Is it just me or is the notation for the sample variation Betza gives for his RBN chess incorrectly written? If so, maybe someone has the time to tell me how Black's knights really move in his sample opening.
wrote on You see, Fergus, the problem I have been having is that White captured a piece with his twelfth move and, instead of demoting, appeared to use fission. Am I overlooking something?
wrote on Demotion is not fission. When a piece demotes, it does not leave anything behind. Remember, fission happens only when moving to an empty space, and demotion happens only when capturing a piece.
wrote on 'There are 21 possibilities to put 5 pieces in seven spaces...'
[2004-10-07] comment by Roberto Lavieri on the 'Chess w/ Terrain' thread, which I bumped today. I recall reading that one victory condition was: occupy five of the seven yellow squares with your pieces.
wrote on It's a shame that the link to the rules no longer work. What do the yellow squares signify?
wrote on What you say in the rules, if I read them as they were actually written, is that a compound non-royal piece demotes when it captures, but you don't appear to mention that it leaves its other half behind. Thus my confusion.
wrote on I assume you mean the original move 12 by White. Yes, that move was illegal. It looks like you found the relevant rules on your own.
wrote on Actually, Matthew, the center 4 x 8 squares are intended to be toroidal.
That's why they are a different color. So pieces on the center 4 x 8
squares have the option of using the edges as toroidal edges or as just
part of the regular board, affording them a much greater range than
usual...
Please see as cf. Ralph Betza's description of Outrigger Toroid Chess:
http://www.chessvariants.org/d.betza/chessvar/outrig.html
wrote on I guess this is played on a cylindrical board, and not a toroidal board, or else the Kings would be in check from each other.
wrote on After 27... Cxc4, Black temporarily leads by an Elephant to a Pawn. I was mostly concerned about White playing 28.Exd5 Exd5 29.Rxd5+ Kc7 30.Gd4, and now Black leads by an Elephant to two Pawns - but could still lose his Cannon on c4.
wrote on I can't move because it says that I am white!! I don't know what to do about it.
wrote on Help? Anyone?
wrote on 27.Nb1 Gxc2 28.Bxd5 looks interesting. I now realize that the White Rook should not be taken: 28... Gxd1 29.Cxd1 check!
wrote on The rules to this game are somewhat complicated. I want to know whether the last move played was done according to the rules: Can a compound piece capture that way? The rules seem to suggest that if the knight is to capture, it should demote and not leave the bishop behind. Or was it played correctly after all?
wrote on I tested the game and found that it was too hard to develop pieces because of the ease in trapping them, hence the weakened Pawns.
wrote on Why is there no pawn double step or e.p. according to the rules?
wrote on Ah, thanks! Yes, I had forgotten that the Queen is the royal piece.
wrote on Fergus, this preset announced Check! instead of Checkmate!
wrote on Jeremy, the game ended with double check and mate to the Black Queen, with the White Dragon assisting.
wrote on I would have thought the black king could have played k-h9, but I guess the lesson here for me is that kings can't stand in the way of leos even if what the leo is threatening is a square where it doesn't have the power to capture.
wrote on Not checkmate, no, but pretty upsetting. You have two ways of intercepting the check, g1-h4, via i2, or f1-h4, through the zebra movement available to the 'Queezy Quince' on f1 (compound rider piece, can move like quebra or quamel or quintessence).
wrote on I don't know if you have been reading my comments, Namik, but you are not playing this game correctly. I suggest you look at the rules page for this game, and let me know if you understand how to play before we continue. Otherwise, I will delete the game log. Thanks.
wrote on Hi Jeremy, thanks for accepting the challenge! I hope we'll have a fun game. Good luck!
wrote on Correction: When I referred to Scottish Chess in my comments I meant Very Scottish Chess.
wrote on Yes, both Kings had moved, none had hit the eighth row and you were putting the enemy King into check, so your move was legal. And that's checkmate.
wrote on Does anyone care to comment as to whether I deployed the assassin correctly and whether it checkmates the king?
wrote on Good game. I have to observe more games, but I have ever been tempted to consider Nutty Knights army better than the Remarkable Rookies. The power of this army can
wrote on Interesting end... More comments after finishing, there is still game to play.
wrote on What happened in this game? Did White resign or is the game still going on?
wrote on Every spring I retire from internet chess and return to my local chess club. So what have I learned this time around? STRATEGY: the Half-Duck is worth 50% more than the Short Rook, making it too valuable to risk trading. I should have used my Short Rooks aggressively and perhaps traded them for the Charging Knights.
TACTICS: If Black plays 29...CH b2-b1(check) 30.CR d2-e1 the Chancellor will have to run away, losing a tempo. Black saw the diagonal move 30 at the last moment, because he had been thinking of the CR as a ordinary Rook. What should Black have played earlier? After 28...WR f7-f6 29.CO f4-d3 the Chancellor will still have to run away. After 28...HD e7-f6 29.CO f4-g6 Black has saved his Half-Duck from capture, but White seems to have a mating attack similar to the one that ended this game. One lesson from this game: never assume that your opponent must reply to a capture with a recapture.
wrote on My congratulations to the winner. Observation: even if the White Unicorn was replaced by a Fibnif (from Ralph Betza's Nutty Knights), Black would still be checkmated.
wrote on hehe. i wondered if your moves were strategically timed, taking into
account international datelines etc. i lost three games on time a week
ago but managed to keep this one alive. i was going to offer a draw if it
wouldn't make any difference to where i would end up in the final table,
but it wasn't updated and i didn't have time to check it myself.
good game anyway.
wrote on You have observed quite rightly how porous a pawn structure is, or becomes,
if the pinchers are placed a knight's move away from each other. But it
has been my observation that pinchers tend to be moved half as often as
the noble pieces are, and maybe even less than that. Since Noble pieces
can move in twice as many directions, it pays to concentrate on tactical
maneuvers on their part, and then supplement them with slower moving
maneuvers on the part of pinchers, after a tactical sequence runs into a
brick wall.
In this game, pawns don't connect together the way they do in Chess.
Instead, it makes more sense to assume they aren't going to move at
all, and just look for inroads to go by. I think there are pawn
structures in Baroque, it's just that they are wide open to diagonal
movements made by the Noble pieces.
wrote on Nice game! In retrospect, Roberto's move 39, capturing the g Pawn was critical. Also, the Rook sacrifice in move 43 was neat and effective in reducing material. At move 49, as Roberto pointed out, there were interesting chances for both. Fergus' c and d passed Pawns, however, were harder to promote with the White King blocking. Nicely played by both!
wrote on On move 20 White played Cannon x Queen, Black retaliated with Vao x Rook, and things got complicated. I think the game was definitely lost when Black failed to play 36... Pawn e6-e5, after which his Knight(c8) is defended by his Bishop(h3), which in turn is defended by his Cannon(h10). At the very least, White's Queen would have a more difficult time breaking through the Black defenders in this position. Thank you for a most interesting game.
wrote on A very interesting game, shows the matching power of two armies.
16 ... d4-d3 looses a pawn??. Probably some more defensive move was
better. Although the idea to exchange the rook was a nice idea for white.
It seems that in the endgame Fide rook is stronger than the charging rook.
Black could have kept his rook. Anyway, a great game !!
wrote on Very complex game. In move 9, Matthew made a risky move which allowed him and advantage of Pincers, but White sacrificed two more Pincers in a threat for capturing Black Immobilizer. After some tactics, the balance was: Black Immobilizer lost, but with the compensation of four Pincers for the piece and a more active position. I improved slowly, and step by step the position, and finally Matt position was deteriorating, being clear a White victory. White Immobilizer have not had the possibility of strong action, but its passive danger was decisive. Morality: Immobilizer is extremely strong in this game and Pincers are not too valious to the end, I believe that Immobilizer value is much more than four Pincers, perhaps its value is that of 6 or 7 Pincer Pawns!.
wrote on I wouldn't say that I marched my King to safety. Toward the end of the
game, I was two moves away from being checkmated, and when I checkmated
David's King, I was only one move away from being checkmated myself. What
saved me from that was being able to checkmate first. The two moves were to
advance his Champion toward my King and to advance his h Pawn toward my
King. This would have left only two spaces between his Champion and my
King, leaving me nowhere to go. On move 11, he could have moved Ch6.
Instead, he moved Wh6, apparently to avoid capture by my Wizard. With Ch6,
he would have been threatening mate with Ph4. I could have played
12. NxP(g5)+ ... LxN
13. W(f1)xL (attacking Champion) ... Cg6 (ending mating threat)
With the move he did make, he was still threating mate in two by moving
the Wizard away, leaving a wormhole at h6, then advancing the Pawn,
leaving a wormhole at h5, which would put the Champion only two spaces
away from my King. I had to check with whatever I could to avoid this.
Since the Wizard was guarding e5, I began with NxP+. He followed with WxN.
I then moved Ce5+ in hopes of CxC, PxC. But instead of taking the bait, he
moved his King, and I then noticed a mate-in-one and won.
wrote on As with most of Game Courier's display problems, this was a server-side problem, not a client-side one. Since the preset for Cavalier Chess was old, I simply updated it instead of investigating the particular display problem. It will not spot check, checkmate, and stalemate, as well as enforce the rules, and the display problem is gone.
wrote on I now prefer the line 4...CxN (Wizard checks) 5.KxC (forced) C h8-f6 check, and the Black Wizard on c8 will capture the White Lion sooner or later. White might do better by declining to take the gambit Pawn on move two. Congratulations to Fergus Duniho for marching his King to safety and winning the game.
wrote on not getting an image on 'd4' on my browser (MSIE 6 on Win98)
wrote on I don't know if the knights are showing up for other people when they move. Not for me. Not on this browser.
wrote on Glitch in the program? Looking at this position a second time, I believe the move N c3-anywhere defeats Black's double check.
wrote on The Templar is not quite what you described. It has the dabbabah moves and a two-square Bishop move--that is, one or two squares diagonally without jumping.
wrote on '(Since I forgot to eliminate g3 at move 5)'
WARNING: illegal move! There was no reason to remove a square with '-g3'. Counting the 10 blue squares after Black's move 5 verifies that the correct number of removals has been made. Counting the blue squares now shows that there has been one square too many removed.
wrote on To answer your question, I believe Black can capture the White Lion.
wrote on David Paulowich: Will you look upon this game and let me know if I've achieved checkmate? Thanks.
wrote on Yes, it was a bug assuming your Immobilizer was immobilized.
Actually, I had written C/c - the Coordinators - instead of X/x - the
Chameleons - in the portion of the code checking for Immobilizer
immobilization.
wrote on At all times in the game '... a pawn may move one or two squares forward, and may capture one or two squares diagonally forward.' This means:
White could have played d4-b6 (PxB) on moves 5, 6, and 7.
Black definitely should have played 8...d9-f7 (PxA).
wrote on I have a problem with the Ultima preset in my game versus Simon
Langley-Evans
I wish to move my Immobiliser (e.g. g2-f3) but whenever I try this it
says
An immobilized piece may only commit suicide. I d3 i g2
presumably some bug is assuming my Immobiliser is immobilised (Simon's
is)
wrote on George, you made an illegal Knight move (to the opposite corner of a 4x4 rectangle). This game should be deleted.
wrote on This was the first Tepuy game in GC. Unfortunatelly, it finished in only two movements, due to an unvoluntary and fatal blunder by Jeremy Good. Sorry. The game is very interesting and really fast, but not so fast in average. Some care is needed in each move.
wrote on It's fixed now.
wrote on I forgot to add new functions for the King in Mir Chess. It draws most of its code from the Eurasian Chess include file, and that game doesn't let Kings cross the river. I'll fix it after I log on at home.
wrote on This preset will enforce rules and spot check, checkmate, and stalemate.you may not move a k from d6 to d5
is the message I get when I enter move 35. I will try again later.
wrote on The graphics for this LOG are corrupted. What happens???. I can
wrote on Since White is also threatening to capture the King by moving the pincher at g6 to f6, this causing the King to be pinched, it happens to be checkmate without waiting for the next move. Very hard game!
wrote on In this game, I carelessly let Jeremy take my Rook en prise. I could have resigned then and there, but I decided not to give up so quickly. I first tried to trap his Queen, hoping that I could capture it. I got back some material when he had to sacrifice a Knight for a Pawn to free his Queen. When his Queen escaped, it was attacking both my Pawn and Knight, and they weren't protecting each other. But they were attacking the three spaces in front of his King, and his advanced c Pawn left an opening for my Queen to check his King. Two of his possible responses would have resulted in immediate checkmate. The only response that wouldn't was to block the check with his Queen. It would have then been captured by the Knight, putting me ahead, and if he captured the Knight with his Pawn, I would have then captured the Pawn, forking the King and Rook, then capturing the Rook.
wrote on Okay, I think I've now fixed the problem.
wrote on I'll look into this when it's not so late.
wrote on Fergus, this game announced 'Check!' after Black's move 2 and move 3. Perhaps it is giving a false 'Check!' after every move.
wrote on Thank you - haven't tested it yet... will let you know
wrote on Indeed there was a bug. The preset was nullyfing the checks from the black pieces immobilized by the white Immobilizer even when it was Black's turn. Thanks for reporting it. It should be working now.
wrote on In my game with Matt I have found that the move verifying preset assumes that an Immobilised piece can give Check.
wrote on I am the culprit. I was unaware this set was used for something else than Catapults of Troy, so I added Troy Horses with Archers and changed the pieces on a Catapult to two-letter items. (I also tampered the CoT logs accordingly.)
wrote on Gary, someone had replaced the original gifford-1.php with a new set that didn't include all the pieces in the original set. This is a very bad thing to do, because it will break old games. That's why the Queens were missing. Sets may be added to, but they should never be deleted from. Since the two files had different images for some values, I did not consolidate them. I will leave that up to you if you are the responsible party. I renamed gifford-1.php to gifford-1-spurious.php and gifford-1-old.php to gifford-1.php.
wrote on Christine and me are playing now a couple of very intersting test-games. In one of them, It is possible that Christine is going to take a slight advantage, and in the other my position seems to be better. The game play is very nice, I am beginning to love this game, regardless its deepness and, surprisingly, its complexity, somewhat unexpected due the simplicity of the moves of pieces.
wrote on Suicide works - thanks
wrote on My worthy opponent is trying to make the move which advances to the 8th rank and converting to bishop with check--which should be legal, but the sequence is not going through. Any suggestions as to how it should be done?
wrote on Sorry, I thought suicide was working on Ultima the way it does at Rococo,
but it was not. It looks like it is now corrected (except that it may
allow some illegal suicides), but in case you are unwilling to wait for
correction of possible further bugs, you may prefer to use the
non-move-veryfing presets.
(This remark concerns only my own move-veryfing presets for the
Ultima-Rococo-Maxima-Fugue family. The majority of the move-veryfing
presets are maintained by the inventor of Game Courier himself, and use
functions instead of long series of conditionals, with presumably fewer
bugs.)
wrote on You sent me email indicating that the Game Courier parser was refusing to accept your move (21. ....., suicide of the pincher at c7), no matter how you write it. But if the script parser ever starts to work correctly, and implement that move, I think that White's best move, in response, will be to bring the Leaper down from b6 to c7 so that the Immobilizer won't get pinched.
wrote on Once again Gary played the flexible 'Four Pawns Defence'. He lost a Knight late in the game because 30...Nb5? is met by 31.Exe6 checkmate. The fact that an Elephant attack cannot be blocked makes it a very useful piece on a crowded board, compensating for its short range.
Not tried in the game was: 40... a2? 41.Eb3 Rc1+ 42.Kxc1 a1(G) 43.Kc2 Nf3 44.Re6 Nxc2 45.Re1 Gb1+ 46.Rxb1 Nxb1 47.Kxb1 and Black is facing a lost endgame. Thinking about this line, I first considered moving my Rook to a6 in an attempt to win the Black General outright. But 43...Nf3 threatens 44...Ne1+ and appears to force an even trade.
wrote on Allow me to offer my congratulations to Michael Nelson here. I placed Courier Chess first on my list, because I went to school with the inventor (old guy joke). By the way, Joe may not get back on the internet until Monday.
wrote on After making four pawn moves, White's position resembled the start of a game of Makruk. It will take more than one game to decide whether this highly original opening is sound or not. My thanks to Gary for playtesting Mir Chess 32.
wrote on This is the variation of Baroque/Ultima that appears to be most popular with the players in the New England or New York part of the world. The Long Leaper is capable of multi-leaping (provided an empty square exists just after the piece taken, and the entire path taken by the Leaper is a straight line without any friendly pieces in the way). Another rule that we have to permit, is that of allowing an immobilized piece to commit suicide, though I'd like to say that I find that objectionable. (Anyway, only one piece can suicide per turn; it would be an interesting variation to permit mass suicides in Baroque/Ultima.)
wrote on 'Addendum to C2 - if the player wishes, or no captured piece is available,
pawns may promote to general.' was Joe's 2005-12-16 Kibbitz to our game of Great Shatranj (80 squares). As for this game, 'Pawns - the pawns may promote on 8th & 9th and must on 10th rank. Pawns promote to lost pieces.' was the move two message.
Gary, check out today's ShatranjSwapMeet Comment if you are looking for a PBM game. Yours, david_64
wrote on It was a very complex beautiful game. In my opinion, around 30
wrote on You seem to be playing both sides in this game. You will need to send another invitation in order for someone else to play you. Not much interest in ordinary chess on this site - you might have a better chance of finding an opponent for a game of Fischer Random Chess.
wrote on Jose: It appears that you chose the White pieces in this game, but you did not send your move.
wrote on http://www.chessvariants.org/large.dir/optima.html
leads to Michael Howe's Optima page, with both 10x10 and 9x9 variants. There are supposed to be 10 Comments, but clicking on the 'View all comments' line leads to an empty page. Also: the Query Results, Starts with the letter 'O', page does not have an Optima entry. Curious!
wrote on Specific pieces and rules for this game:
K = king - 1 step any
Q = general - 1 step any
B = 'elefant' - alfil-fers - slide 1 or jump 2 diagonally only
N = knight - jump 1 ortho, then 1 diag outward
R = 'dababba' - dabbabah-wazir - slide 1 or jump 2 orthogonally only
M = 'minister' - knight-dabbabah-wazir - slide 1 or jump 2 ortho only;
after slide 1, may slide 1 diag outward
A = 'high priest' - knight-alfil-fers - slide 1 or jump 2 diag only;
after slide 1, may slide 1 ortho outward
P = pawn - moves 1 ortho forward only; captures 1 diag forward only
Promotion rules:
A1 - Promotion is on the 8th rank - recommended for Great Shatranj.
B1 - Only pawns promote - recommended.
C2 - Moderate restriction: pawns promote only to lost pieces, and no more
than 1 of each type. Further, if an alfil/elephant is taken, it cannot be
put on the 'same color' (same half of the board) as a remaining friendly
alfil/elephant; and an augmented knight must be different than a remaining
friendly augmented knight - recommended for Great Shatranj.
Addendum to C2 - if the player wishes, or no captured piece is available,
pawns may promote to general.
wrote on I wrote this preset before I developed code and methods for spotting checkmate, and I haven't updated it since then. It just doesn't spot checkmate.
wrote on 'David Paulowich is commenting on shatranj (and other ancient variants), and is also working on a shako-style game. Think we might get him to swap games? I know, dream on.'
Be careful what you wish for. (Cue ominous music) I direct your attention to my 'ShatranjSwapMeet' subject on the Ratings and Comments page.
wrote on Rules of this chessvariant in English :
http://caissus.gmxhome.de/Rules_great_chess_10x10.htm
wrote on I can certainly understand your position, but that doesn't necessarily
mean I should agree to your interpretation of the written rules.
Whoever bothers to write down these rules should talk to the host of the
website this is being played on (htt://www.chessvariants.org) and ask them
to edit the rules.
The problem with your interpretation is that it flies in the face of the
comments I'd made a month or two ago, and which nobody bothered to
correct me about. At this point in time we have no way of knowing if the
current rules are the same as those in effect when gwduke and carlos were
playing their game, though I will assume they are. The only thing we know
for sure is that gwduke arrived at some kind of consensus about what they
felt was a proper resolution to an ambiguity in the rules. I don't
accept that consensus, and suggest that gwduke and carlos resume their
game at the point where carlos attempted to leap a piece that was adjacent
to his leaper.
In any case, as you can see from the position I had worked towards, all
three of my cannonball pawns were brought together so that they would be
adjacent to each other; all three cannonballs were also, in fact, adjacent
to the Leaper in question; the word 'adjacent' is found in the rules I
was working under, and the moves I was contemplating, suggested a
situation that was bound by those rules.
The rules should be edited so that the words 'immediately after' replace
the words 'somewhere beyond.' There is no need to muddy the waters with
words about adjacency, and in fact made worse by talking about adjacency.
At this point, however, carlos and gwduke should resume their game
according to the plain meaning of the rules that were in place. I don't
agree to follow the 'answer' that they ended up agreeing to.
Until the rules are actually edited to reflect the informal agreement that
gwduke and carlos entered into, we have reached an impasse.
wrote on Longleapers can captured pieces adjacent to them (the LL)! What they cannot do is
capturing pieces which are adjacent one to each other. Dont be confused.
Here is an example of legal capture:
capturing pieces which are adjacent one to each other. Dont be confused.
Here is an example of legal capture:
+---+---+---+---+---+ | L | p | | * | | +---+---+---+---+---+and the pawn is captured. And an example of illegal capture:
+---+---+---+---+---+ | L | | p | p | * | +---+---+---+---+---+where the LL cannot land on the square marked by '*'.
wrote on It is unfortunate that we find ourselves at an impasse over the rule about
capturing adjacent pieces. However, we had both commented on this rule in
our previous game (see the comments to moves 30 and 31), and I expressed
surprise that pieces adjacent to the Leaper could not be captured. Since
then, I've mentioned to Joe Joyce in our game of Ultima that Leapers most
certainly *could* capture enemy pieces that are adjacent to it, the
important thing being, that the next square immediately after the target
is open, this being a major distinction between Rococo and Ultima.
The problem with ambiguously written rules is that there is a ripple
effect that goes well past the games that are being played by those rules,
as other games are affected, too. Newcomers to one game rely upon the
distinctions that are made with other, earlier games to learn the
differences.
The ripple effect of misunderstandings began about two months ago, at
least between us.
It is unfortunate that you and Carlos decided that the rules permitted
that which you and I talked about, and agreed did not.
wrote on yeah thanks blackie, we got it 'drawn' now :)
wrote on I think you type 'drawn' to drawn, not 'draw'.
wrote on The game was decided after White
wrote on Quite a game going on here. As the remaining elephant and ferz on each side can guard each other but never threaten the other side's pieces, the maneuvering ought to be quite interesting. Are there spectacular (said tongue-in-cheek, as there appear to be few if any 'spectacular' moves anywhere in shatranj) sacrifices in the future, or will the pieces remain on the board to block pawns? Will the 'bare king' rule come into effect? Can black even the game? Pity the game takes so long to load, I'd love to run through the moves on-screen.
wrote on I might have mentioned that pinchers in Baroque/Ultima tend to be placed
most favorably towards one another, or towards pieces they are friendly
to, if they are a Knight's move away. I think that that is just a rule
of thumb, and you have to be on your toes in case some kind of exception
arises to place them somewhere else.
Another rule of thumb is that, as pieces given to the 'custodial' mode
of capture, they are placed towards the edges of the board. That means
that, without a good reason to do otherwise, they should not be placed in
the center of the board.
For players used to traditional chess, it is easy to think of the pincher
as a pawn-like piece that always moves forward. However, some of the best
positional moves in Baroque/Ultima lie in moving the pinchers sideways,
often to the very edge of the board.
wrote on well done yes, finally it is offical :)
he he
wrote on Interesting end. Black could force a draw in some opportunities, but Mike
played to see if it was a possible a victory, although I think it was not
a real possibility. I believe that Black move 55 was the definitive
error:
55...k e6-d6(?). It could be better f7-f5,the last chance for an even
result.
wrote on Christine, I got it! There is a drop-down menu in the game status line that
lets you choose draw! I went through the guide a couple of times and found
nothing about draws either. Possibly if the game checked moves and for
mate, it would recognize 'draw', but this preset doesn't. For what
it's worth, I had to send you the draw move as #49 to get it to register,
although there is a way to back up and re-do a move. Maybe next game we'll
figure that out.
Enjoy!
wrote on joe, lol, i'm trying to get game courier to understand this is a draw, i
tired 'draw' and then '//draw' but got messages to go back and refresh
page, then i tried 'draw // draw' lol, but it seems to think it is your
move now :)
i can't see anything whatsoever in the guide about 'draws'?!
so i dunno, any ideas?
your move btw :)
just noticed also, i guess it is indicating to you that it is your 49th move to play, so it has accepted my 47th 'draw' as a move, and your 48th and my 48th moves, non moves again, 'draw' moves, as actual moves.
hey, this is kinda fun lol :)
wrote on Oops! I said 'check' but it obviously isn't check. I was getting ahead of myself.
wrote on It's a funny thing about pawn structures in Rococo, unlike traditional Chess, pawns almost never lock together, but rather gravitate around each other, always with a little safety zone between them. Even though we managed to exchange some pawns, the pawn structures seem to remain very stable.
wrote on Can you phrase the rules for Anti-King Chess a little bit differently?
The way I read the rules, it appears that a little bit of interpretation
can make these rules operate differently than actually intended.
For instance, the rules say that an Anti-King is 'checkmated' if it is
no longer in a state of check. Does it matter if the real King is in
check?
If a player must choose between moving a real King out of check, and
keeping an Anti-King in check, what is he allowed to do if he finds
himself in zugzwang, and must choose between the two, where complying with
one rule will cause him to violate the other?
I'd think that checking an enemy King in such a way that his Anti-King
would have to be moved out of check, would constitute a loss as well.
wrote on I think I just tried to hop over your Cannonball Pawn and capture it by hopping? Instead of landing? Well, if that is what happened (and seeing as how Game Courier isn't set up to let me back up to see), could you put the Cannonball Pawn back where it was before I zeroed it out? This whole thing is probably the result of a little mirage on my end.
wrote on Thanks for the comments, David. Glad you enjoyed the game. I found it very
interesting, in the perjorative sense of interesting. :-) I did my best to
avoid swapping elephants; as you can see, I needed both. Felt I had the
advantage after the general-knight trade, but Christine, you always
blocked anything I did, and kept improving your position no matter what I
tried. Figured I was dead when you managed to spring your second rook; my
whole game plan was to get my rook to your back rank for an 'X-ray'
check to get that rook, then I had a won game. After that, I was trying to
avoid defeat by pushing the attack and using my pair of elephants for
'fire control'. Talk about dancing elephants...
And, Christine, of course I'm paranoid; I live smack dab in the middle of
the New York metro area. Everyone here is either paranoid or acts it. Draws
are a different matter. I think some games must be inherently drawish, far
more so than others; and I suspect MS has some of those characteristics.
When I come up with a good way to frame the debate, or at least the
question, I'll put it in the general comments section (where it will
undoubtedly be ignored ;-)
wrote on oh i have just noticed now last two comments, thanks for your views David.
Was it interesting, he he, i really felt like i was fighting to save the
game from the moment i took Joe's general with my knight (move 15). Not
that i think the knight is better than general, but i gave up ok/good
position (i think) for material advantage, and that really isn't my
style, and i'll never do that again lol. i hated the game from that point
on :)
Yeah, i needed to swap elephants, your right. Did i have a chance? :) ...
i really can't remember now, i think i was always wanting to swap pieces
from move 15 :) And Joe, I think you might be a little paranoid about the
idea of MS being very drawish, i am sure plenty of games would end in a
result other than draw. Anyway, i guess it was a fun game :) i just
couldn't see a win for black (me) in the end, too dangerous to do
anything, those pawns coming down at me :)
wrote on I would like to thank you both for this interesting game!
Joe, the moves 45. Rc1-a1 and 46. Ra1-a5 should force a draw. White's Elephant pair is very strong in the center of the board and Black has to worry about the weak Black Pawn (a7).
Christine, now you know which endgame to avoid. You needed to force a trade of the light-square Elephants early in the game - then your General could have exploited the colorboundness of the lone White Elephant. If that was not possible, you could try to trade your Elephant for two White Pawns. Good winning chances for Black - also some losing chances(!)
wrote on This game has ended in a draw. Clearly the MS general is stronger than the
MS elephant or knight; David you were absolutely right. For a great number
of turns before the end, the board was in what I consider a classic draw
position: the pieces spread evenly over the center of the board, the
remaining pawns left on each side facing each other, a few pieces backing
them up - enough to prevent a breakthrough by the other side, but not
enough to attack and force a breakthrough. This leads me to ask about the
frequency of draws. My last 3 shatranj-type games, one historic shatranj
and 2 MS games, have all been draws. Is this a coincidence, or is MS, or
the game of shatranj in general, prone to draws? I know that high-level
chess is very drawish, but if you look at my play, you'll see that is not
why I draw. So, either erratic or low-level play also leads to draws, or
there is an inherent drawishness to some (types of) games.
The more I think about this, the more I think I need to ask these
questions in the general comments area, but there is one question I could
ask here:
'Could anybody do better with either side in this game than the original
moves? Can a winning strategy be demonstrated, just for this game?'
wrote on Since this game has been idle for a while, this is a reminder to all that
this is an open-kibbitz game; anyone may comment on any aspect of the game
in progress. In fact, observations and suggestions are appreciated. The
goal is to have, when we are finished, the record of a very high-level
error-free game that can be studied.
In this position, I'm inclined to develop the other knight (g8) to e7,
declaring anti-check. It might be better to make a stronger developing
move, though... Perhaps I'm just too eager to declare anti-check :)
wrote on thanks yes, it was a very interesting game, our other game is a great game also :)
wrote on Good short game, Andreas. You take advantage of my weak opening and played with high precision. No, if k e1-d1, P e2-e4 you can make a massacre with my pieces and I would have to resign in two moves. Morality: in this game extreme care is needed from the first move.
wrote on this game was so long ago that i don't remember much about it. i am about to start another game and took a look at it. i made two silly errors in the first move. first, i pushed a pawn. according to the rules, the game is too biased if white has a push first move. also, i moved that pawn two squares. it's only supposed to ever be one square. mathieus also moved a pawn two squares in one turn. shoddy reading of the rules by both of us!
wrote on It's possible, as the same thing happened in my even quicker loss to Antoine in chinese chess. In that instance, 2 cannon in line delivered the checkmate. I didn't have an effective capture or interposition, nor a king move, but had to resign to 'give' him the win. Waited a week on that one, too.Hate to admit to being such a bad player, but I'm kinda hoping these 2 games are anomalies.
wrote on Is it possible that the preset doesn't handle double check correctly? Could this also be a problem in other presets? Black could counter the Unicorn check or the Lion check, but not both at once as this requires a move of the Queen and he has none.
wrote on I don't know what is going on here... I very specifically deleted all
rule-enforcement code from this preset. I am sure of it. And now, there
it is... I can only assume that it is some continuation of the
file-write-security problems that the site had for quite a while there
(and maybe still does.)
Can someone with appropriate access kill all rule enforcement code from
this preset?
wrote on WARNING! any attempt to move a piece from f9 or d9 results in:
<p>Syntax Error on line 161
<p>The function t has not been defined.
wrote on It most certainly is, Roberto. The preset doesn't recognize this, though. I was going to wait a few more days, hoping someone could fix that, before I sent 'resign' as my move. I just think he earned a 'mate', not a 'resign'. No difference in the final score, though.
wrote on Very interesting game.
wrote on It is Checkmate. What a beautiful position.
wrote on it is no doubt interesting giving the fers/general the movement of king and
elephant the extra 1 step diagonal move, i guess it all depends on position
of course, just like in chess when sometimes the knight is better than the
bishop, and other times the bishop is better.
i do agree, the general seems much better than the elephant ... seeing
this game is new, and has not been played much, the more times it is
played, things will become clearer .. pretty interesting game indeed.
wrote on http://www.chessvariants.org/d.betza/pieceval/fig2key.html
<p>gives some of Betza's thoughts on piece values. My piece values are intended for the late endgame, when a Rook will dominate the board. But nothing is carved in stone - many writers reduce the Rook's value to 14 or so (4.66 Pawns). Feel free to quote my numbers - but I reserve the right to change my mind in the future. How would I rate the pair of MS elephants? I mistrust colorbound pieces. In fact, I have made a career out of trading a Bishop for a Knight in the opening and using my 'deadly Knight pair' in the middle game. Also I generally get good results in one Knight versus one Bishop endgames.
<p>Here are some simple endgames. FIRST: K+N vs K+R is usually a draw, except when the White King happens to be on the edge of the board. Perhaps there may also be a chance for a stalemate victory in a Shatranj variant. SECOND: consider the position WHITE K(b2) and E(e5), BLACK K(d3) and G(c4). After White moves the Elephant, the Black General will check on c3, pushing the White King to the edge of the board. I really don't know if there is a forced mate here - Zillions can be useful for testing endgame positions. THIRD: K+E+E vs K+G+P pits a 16 point force against a 15 point force. But Black may be able to advance the Pawn until White is forced to trade an Elephant for it, leading to the sort of endgame I dealt with in the previous note. Generals appear to be much stronger than Elephants.
wrote on i don't think you blundered allowing my knight to take your general, if i had the move over i would take the elephant with the knight, and disrupt your pawns. i think i blundered with that move, because you gained in development, with the rook taking my knight, your rook moved to the center, and you also gained space. after this move, i feel your game was much better, even if down material.
wrote on Carlos,
<p>Actually, I think my idea to run the Catapult until I could launch the Ram and/or the Troy Horse (and/or the h Pawn) was perfectly sound. All I had to do was to play 3. Bb2 and to catapult the Rook on the fifth row followed by 5. Lc1 to lock up everything. My move 9 was also bad. I should have taken more time to catapult the Ram. Maybe I played chicken on move 13 when I could have sacrificed the Troy Horse, forcing you to capture it with your Ram, thus allowing 14. M a7 and threatening your Catapult after allowing one unique Archer or chasing it perpetually, but it seems that it wouldn't have won. Afterwards you were very probably right to trade your Troy Horse, but I think you could have saved your second Archer (20... a d1-f1+ 21. CK g2-g5 b f11-e10 (!) 22. A h7xh9 a f1xh3 23. N f7xd8 e9xd8) and now both your King and your Bridge-Builder can flee while I am only able to exfiltrate my Rook. (At the time, I felt I had a draw anyway.) As it went, with only one Archer, my Rook could stay on the Catapult and either capture your Rook, exchange your Bridge Builder or promote a second Archer.
<p>I'm adding below the invisible (that is, between HTML comment tags) zsg of the game in case either you or Gary wants to analyze it, but you'll have to download the latest version for the zrf, because the previous version does not allow a Troy Horse to release an Archer and to fall back on its Catapult (my move 15).
<!--
Zillions Save Game File Version 0.02 HHC
RulesFile=C:(directory)\Catapults of Troy.zrf
VariantName=Catapults of Troy
1. Bishop c1 - a3
1. Troy-Horse g11 - f9
2. Rook a1 x b1 = Catapult-with-Rook
2. Catapult b11 x a11 = Catapult-with-Rook
3. Catapult-with-Rook b1 x d1 White Rook b1 = Catapult-with-Bridge-Builder
on d1
3. Troy-Horse f9 - e7
4. Rook b1 - b5
4. Catapult-with-Rook a11 - a1 Black Catapult a11 = Rook on a1
5. Catapult-with-Bridge-Builder d1 x e1 White Bridge-Builder d1 =
Catapult-with-King on e1
5. Rook a1 x a2
6. Bishop f1 - h3
6. Rook a2 x a3
7. Catapult-with-King e1 x g1 White King e1 = Catapult-with-Troy-Horse on
g1
7. Ram h11 - g11
8. Catapult-with-Troy-Horse g1 x h1 White Troy-Horse g1 =
Catapult-with-Ram on h1
8. Troy-Horse e7 - f9
9. Catapult-with-Ram h1 - h7 White Catapult h1 = Ram on h7
9. Ram g11 - g7
10. Pawn e2 - e3
10. Catapult a11 x a10 = Catapult-with-Pawn
11. Catapult h1 x g1 = Catapult-with-Troy-Horse
11. Pawn h10 - h9
12. Catapult-with-Troy-Horse g1 - g5
12. Pawn e10 - e9
13. Ram h7 - a7 x g7 x f7 x e7 x d7 x c7 x b7 x a7
13. Catapult-with-Pawn a10 - a1 Black Catapult a10 = Archer on a1
14. Catapult-with-Troy-Horse g5 - h7 White Catapult g5 = Troy-Horse on h7
14. Troy-Horse f9 - d8
15. Troy-Horse h7 x g5 White Archer h7 = Catapult-with-Knight on g5
15. Catapult a10 x c10 = Catapult-with-Pawn
16. King e1 - f1
16. Catapult-with-Pawn c10 - c1 Black Catapult c10 = Archer on c1
17. Bridge-Builder d1 x c1
17. Archer a1 x c1
18. Catapult-with-Knight g5 - g2 White Knight g5 = Catapult on g2
18. Catapult c10 x d10 = Catapult-with-Pawn
19. Knight g5 - f7
19. Catapult-with-Pawn d10 - d1 Black Catapult d10 = Archer on d1
20. King f1 x g2 = Catapult-with-King
20. Troy-Horse d8 x f7
21. x f7
21. Bishop f11 - e10
22. Archer h7 x h9
22. Archer d1 - e2
23. Catapult-with-King g2 - g11 White Catapult g2 = King on g11
23. Archer e2 x f2
24. Catapult g2 - g5
24. King e11 x d10 = Catapult-with-King
25. Archer h9 - g10
25. Catapult-with-King d10 - d1 Black Catapult d10 = King on d1
26. Bishop h3 - g4
26. King d1 x d2
27. Catapult g5 x g4 = Catapult-with-Bishop
27. King d2 x e3
28. Catapult-with-Bishop g4 - g5
28. Archer f2 - f4
29. Catapult-with-Bishop g5 x f4 White Catapult g5 = Bishop on f4
29. King e3 x f4
30. Archer g10 x f10
30. Bridge-Builder d11 x d10 = Catapult-with-Bridge-Builder
31. x e10
31. Catapult-with-Bridge-Builder d10 - d1 Black Catapult d10 =
Bridge-Builder on d1
32. Archer f10 - e11
32. Bishop c11 - b10
33. x d10
33. Archer c1 x c2
34. Catapult g5 x b5 = Catapult-with-Rook
34. Archer c2 - c4
35. Catapult-with-Rook b5 - b2
35. Bridge-Builder d1 - c1
36. Catapult-with-Rook b2 - g2
36. Rook a3 - h3
37. Catapult-with-Rook g2 x h2 White Rook g2 = Catapult-with-Pawn on h2
37. King f4 - f3
-->
wrote on Hi, David. Okay, I agree there is a penalty for being vulnerable to check,
but there should be since the king can at most be passive-agressive. Where
your numbers run up against my 40 years held beliefs is in the relative
values of the rook and the general. It doesn't feel right that the
distance between knight and general is the same as between general and
rook. I might shade the general's value toward 11. Of course, I was
originally looking at it as 7, so I'm basically willing to go along with
your values. This means I blundered in allowing the knight-general
exchange. I wondered about that when I did it, but it neutralized black's
one forward piece.
How would you rate the pair of MS elephants? I feel 2 elephants and 1
knight are superior to 1 elephant and 2 knights, even though the point
totals favor 2N + 1E to 2E + 1N 26 to 25. The E pair can work side-by-side
to cover the 4 adjacent squares directly fronting them, where the knights
can't. And they retain the jumping ability, so they can't be blocked,
either. I'd lean toward EEN = 27 or 28, to NNE = 26.
But these are just guesses on my part. What kinds of modern references for
solid numbers do we have? And how do we adjust them to the range of
variants that even the 2 of us have made?
Thanks for the comment and the info. I'm very tempted to ask if I might
reference/include your comment with the soon-to-be updated MS page. This
is the first glimmering of something that could lead to a strategy or two.
Lastly, I'd like to ask what you think the odds of a draw are in both
Shatranj and MS?
wrote on antoine, good game!
i'm curious to know if you would have played any differently to me
towards the end? i had gary do that king switch on me in an earlier game
where it caught me by surprise, so i was ready for it this time and
planned to send my own king plus the bridge-builder over. i felt in
control for a long time, but i didn't anticipate how annoying your few
remaining pieces on your home side would be. maybe you did start poorly,
but i think you finished well.
that early stage was weird. you moved your catapult pretty much the whole
way across the back row... seemed like negative play, but each time the
catapult has a piece a whole bunch of new threats show up.
i'm not sure if my swap of the archer horse for the horse was sound or
not. i did it to rule out the possibility of defeat, but in the end it
might have ruled out victory too?
be interested to know what gary thought of this game.
wrote on ...'The Jumper may also move or capture by jumping over any piece and
landing over the next square (again, in any of the six Rook-wise
directions).'
Jumper is a 'short Cannon' in some sense, it can only capture jumping
over an intervening piece, but only if there is an enemy to capture in the
inmediate next square in that direction. It can also jump if the next
square after the jumped piece is empty, but there is not any capture in
this case.
wrote on Pawn=3, Elephant=8, Knight=9, General=12, Rook=15 is my 'best guess' for the values of the pieces. Back in 1996 Ralph Betza said your General (also called Commoner) was no stronger than the Knight, but he later corrected that mistake. Setting the King itself at 2.5 x 3 = 7.5 points would only make sense if you assign a large penalty for being vulnerable to checks. Elephants and Knights are valuable on a crowded board, but less so in endgames where their ability to leap is mostly irrelevant.
<p>I believe I can offer more than just a guess as to what constitutes suffient mating force against a lone King on the 8x8 board. King and one General will suffice, as will King and two Elephants. King and two Knights can slowly force a stalemate victory. Compare the forced mate in sixty moves (or so) in some FIDE endgames where King and two Knights first blockade the lone enemy Pawn, then force the enemy King into a corner, then move in and 'stalemate' the King. After the Pawn makes a move or two, one of the Knights shifts from 'stalemate' to checkmate.
wrote on i must be stupid. what's the difference between the jumper and the long leaper?
wrote on When I open the LOG, I can see the squares in which the cursor is over, at
least as espectator, I aam not sure if it will happen when I enter in the
LOG as player. Carlos Carlos, can you see the positions in the view mode,
entering in the LOG as espectator in Game Courier?. If not, there is a
problem with your system. If yes, you can plan your next move viewing the
positions in the LOG, before entering in the player
wrote on i've lost the ability to tell which square the cursor is over. nothing appears. i guess i've accidentally changed something in my settings?? help!
wrote on Actually, now when I go back and look at my NoRules settings for this game, the rules are back! I don't know what's going on, but I can only assume we still have file permission problems at the very least.
wrote on Hmmm... I seem to be unable to make the move f1-c4... It says funciton T is undefined, but I'm pretty sure I cleared out all rule-enforcement code. Not sure what's going on here...
wrote on The game has ended. Mike, you played well, but you have not controled the Immobilizer in the ends, perhaps you could to that with your pair of Chameleons. Nevertheless, it was far from easy to win. Good game.
wrote on I can not make my selected move 39, when I try to move my Long-Leaper capturing a Pawn, it appears the message: 'An immobilized piece may only commit suicide'. But the case is that my Long-Leaper is NOT immobilized, it is adjacent to my OWN Immobilizer. Can someone see what happens and help me?
wrote on oh, i was wondering where this game had gone. i missed that mate.
good game. this was good because i was outplayed... you played well from
start to finish. i've lost a couple of games in this tournament through
retarded blunders which are much more annoying. good luck with the rest
of the tournament!
wrote on 15...p g7-g5 (!!) was a winner move, and I think the only one, almost all the rest are LOSING moves. Morality: this game is not easy to play, and extreme care is needed, in some moments there may be many 'royal' pieces on the board, and you must take care on all of them at the same time.
wrote on hey someone should make this game into a zillions game come on lol :)
wrote on Joe, if you send the preset URL to the editors we can post your preset for this game.
wrote on Greg: the Rules Button for this game links to Wildebeest Chess.
wrote on I have not idea who has the advantage, Black has a piece more and Black is going to have also some quality advantage, and White has, in compensation, four Pawns more, six against two, so Black defense is somewhat nude. Position is going to be open, and all can happen. Black can
wrote on I'm not sure what I was thinking on move 25. I needed to make the safe move, 25. Qd7. With all the unfamiliar variants in this tournament, it's kind of embarrassing to be caught blundering in good old chess.
<p>I really liked the starting position in this game, but I suppose when all the bishops start in the corners they're destined to be traded off in the center.
wrote on Assuming that you do not promote a Pawn to a Ferz, then your variant is different enough that you should write it up as a stand-alone variant. I suggest you first check out my Shatranj Kamil (64), soon to be a last minute entry in the 10-Contest. I will have a lot to say about bare king loss, and other rules. Note: Gothic Isles Chess has the only ZRF (to my knowledge) that correctly implements the classic Shatranj bare king rule. Most ZRFs are worse than useless, as I indicated in my 2005-03-30 Comment on the Shatranj page.
wrote on David, thanks for the reference. The variants are quite similar, although
Peter obviously spent more time on his. Mine was created as I was typing
the words in the comment to Roberto. What is the ettiquette for something
like this 'modern' shatranj variant? Do I add it as a comment to Gothic
Isles Chess (and possibly, Shatranj Kamil), write it up as a stand-alone
variant (with references), or is there an actual modest variants section
where it would reasonably fit? (One of the current 'comments' asks what
happened to the modest variant section, so I assume there at least was
one.)
Also, I'm surprised that people actually read those lengthy comments
between moves, although I can see why people following the tournament
would be interested in how Roberto's doing this year. (Still, I'm
surprised that Roberto reads the comments.)
wrote on Joe, your idea for 'Modern Shatranj' is very close to Peter Aronson's Gothic Isles Chess (April 2001). That variant has two 'Dragons' that move like Elephants or Counsellors, plus a single 'Champion' that moves like a Counsellor or forward orthogonally (compare the Silver General in Shogi). Pawns promote to a variety of pieces. Also, I am currently putting the finishing touches on Shatranj Kamil (64), with 18 pieces in each army on an 8x8 board, including a brand new version of the Elephant. Pawns promote to Silver Generals.
wrote on Thanks for quoting C. L. Moore's explanation for the two names. But I wouldn't fully trust that explanation for the Hulk's name, since the comic book character's full name is Robert Bruce Banner, not Bruce David Banner. I think I recall reading in Stan Lee's Soapbox that they used the name of David Banner on the TV show, because it sounded better than Bruce. But I think he was whitewashing over the real reason, which is that the name Bruce (perhaps because of ridiculous speculations over the relationship between Batman and Robin) has come to be associated with gays. Still, this explanation may be why his name is Robert Bruce Banner. According to one webpage I found through Google, the Hulk was called Bob Banner for a couple issues, apparently because Lee and Kirby forgot his name was Bruce.
wrote on 'In the first story he was called Galloway. Then we packed up and drove to the other coast, and when Hank wrote the second story he had forgotten this and called the character Gallegher. He eventually got around this very neatly by explaining that the man was, of course, Galloway Gallegher. Which sounds rather like the logic of Gallegher himself.' - C. L. Moore (circa 1975)
<p>David says: I recall Stan Lee telling a similar story regarding David Bruce Banner [The Incredible Hulk].
wrote on Since I have 'Time Locker' and 'Proud Robot' in a different anthology, can you summarize what she says about using two different names for the same character?
wrote on Draw accepted. Hi, Mike. I thought about it for hours. When you said you were thinking about offering a draw last turn, I thought we should exchange at least most of the major pieces, but looking at the position and how we've been playing, I think you're right. We could easily play another 30+ moves without getting anywhere unless someone blunders. I think we should recommend to Fergus that tournaments use the optional pawn first move double step and castling rules. It would not only speed the game up, it might loosen it up. If you could actually get a pawn where you wanted without telegraphing the move and giving your opponent a reply move, you might see more interesting tactics. Thanks for the game. Luck in the rest of the tournament. Joe
wrote on 'Jurisprudence should be founded on justice, and not be a three-dimensional chess game.' from Time Locker, one of five fascinating stories in the hardcover book 'Robots Have No Tails' (c) 1952 by Lewis Padgett. Also available as a 95 cent Lancer Science Fiction Library paperback, with Henry Kuttner (author) and C. L. Moore (new introduction). She explains the confusion that resulted in the lead character being named Galloway Gallegher.
wrote on Okay, I can live with that.
<p>Certainly the ZRF confirms Peter's original intent. What I said about Zillions of Games was meant to explain why it would not occur to someone like me to look in a ZRF for clarification of rules which already seemed clear. Basically, I don't use Zillions, so I generally don't pay any attention to ZRFs. I don't recall whether I ever looked at one before yesterday, and until I did I didn't know or expect that it would contain a human-language description of the rules.
<p>If the original text of the Rococo page was ambiguous, it was ambiguous in an unusual way. It seems that almost anyone who reads it without prior experience with the game sees only one interpretation, but different people don't all see the same interpretation. So the ambiguity is hidden: it goes unnoticed until people with different interpretations play a game in which a certain type of position arises. Since the ambiguity was not obvious, the original text was misleading. (Certainly no one intended to mislead anyone, but as it happened I and others were misled.)
<p>It's unfortunate that this happened in a tournament game, but at least now we all know what the rule is, and future generations of Rococo players won't have to have this argument.
<p>In other news, I've been trying to google up the story of the 19th-century chess master who once promoted a pawn to a piece of the other color. It was Pillsbury, according to a post by Ed Trice on CVP's Gothic Chess page, but I can't find a complete account. I seem to remember that someone almost got pushed through a window, but perhaps my mind has jumbled two stories together.
wrote on <P>Thomas,</P>
<P>It is not a matter of you being responsible for checking the ZRF, and the commercial status of Zillions of Games is irrelevant to this matter. What is important here is that the text description of the rules given in the ZRF's <KBD>description</KBD> field matches the clarification Peter made to the page on this site. The copy on my computer is several years old and reads the same as you just quoted. This is hard evidence that the revision Peter made to the Rococo page was a clarification to the rules and not a revision of them. Basically, Peter had published two different descriptions of the game, and one was ambiguous while the other was clear. It was the ambiguity of the webpage description that originally led to this discussion over the rules. When the ambiguity was brought to his attention, Peter corrected it by bringing the ambiguous description in line with the clear description. So the ruling that the Long Leaper move was illegal will stand.</P>
wrote on A most interesting game.
Value classes 7 & 8 are not essential to game play as they will so seldom
occur, but neither do they harm gameplay and they make the piece set
logically complete.
As for the SuperCardinal, it is the strongest vc5 piece in terms of
mobility calculated a la Betza, but is weaker than any vc6 piece. Look at
it this way. A Rook is one atom stronger than a Bishop: we add a 'super'
move to each and a SuperRook is one atom stronger than a SuperBishop
(perhaps the gap narrows a bit as the super move removes colorbinding for
the Bishop). Now if a Chancellor is one atom stronger than a Cardinal
adding the super move to each should likewise leave the SuperChancellor
one atom stronger than the SuperCardinal.
By the way, the SuperCardinal can push the King around quite nicely, but
the SuperChancellor can mate unassisted.
wrote on Congratulations to both of you for an exciting game!
<p>I wish to strongly disagree with any proposal that the SuperCardinal should be redefined as a class 6 piece. In fact, the CardinalRider (Unicorn) is still my favorite piece in class 5. On the other hand, the SuperBishop (Dragon Horse) is my favorite piece in class 3. Half the fun of the game comes from players holding fundamentally different opinions and fighting for those opinions on the chessboard. Perhaps we will meet over the board after this tournament ends.
wrote on Draw in an intense game plenty of good moves, but also with an incredible lot of blunders by both bands...
wrote on <p>Fergus,</p>
<p>It looks like we're in agreement regarding the text of the rules. But I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea of treating the ZRF as a source on equal footing with the human-language text.</p>
<p>First of all, Zillions of Games is proprietary software which only runs on Microsoft Windows and costs more money than I'm willing to pay for it. I don't have a copy, I don't intend to buy one, and I don't think tournament players should be expected to buy Zillions in order to know the rules of the games in the tournament.</p>
<p>In order to determine what rules the ZRF enforces, I would have to do one of the following: either (1) purchase Zillions of Games, download the Rococo ZRF, and spend many hours setting up every situation I could think of in which a question could arise; or (2) learn the programming language used for ZRFs, download the Rococo ZRF, and spend many hours analyzing its source code to see how it would handle each situation I could think of in which a question could arise. In both cases, I couldn't be sure that I hadn't missed an important situation, and in the second case I couldn't be sure that my analysis was correct.</p>
<p>It would have made sense for me to attempt one of these two things only if I had thought that the text of the rules was unclear. And if I had thought that, I would simply have asked a question on the Rococo comment board. As it happens, I remember thinking about the issue of capture along an edge before the game began, and after reading the text carefully, I thought that I understood the rule and that no other interpretation was possible.</p>
<p>Now, today I have looked at the ZRF, and while I don't have the knowledge necessary to analyze the code, I see that it contains the following text as part of the game description [emphasis mine]:
<blockquote>The outer ring of squares on the board may only be entered
when required by a capture. Moves within the outer ring are
only allowed when capturing as well,
<b>and then as few squares as necessary</b>. Thus, a piece on the
outer ring may only move to capture or to leave the outer
ring.</blockquote>
The phrase in bold makes the rule clear.</p>
<p>In summary, I don't like the idea that I should have been expected to check the ZRF, but I must admit that the information was there to be found if I had checked it. Thus, if it is the opinion of the court that I should have checked it, then I guess I don't have much of a case.</p>
wrote on <P>Thomas,</P>
<P>For the sake of reference, I will first include a link to the original text of the rules.</P>
<P>http://web.archive.org/web/20041021104951/http://www.chessvariants.com/other.dir/rococo.html</P>
<P>This copy of the text comes from October 21, 2004, and it is stored on the Archive.org website.</P>
<P>I will now compare relevant passages of text from the old copy and from the revised copy:</P>
<P>The original description of the Long Leaper says, 'It may end its move on an edge square only when that is the only way to make a particular capture.' And the description in revised text says, 'It may end its move on an edge square only when that is the only way to make a particular capture.' This text has not changed, and taken by itself, it seems more in line with your position.</P>
<P>In the original version, the general description of the rules says:</P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
The 36 outer squares of the 10 x 10 Rococo board are marked in the diagram below. These marked squares on the edge of the board are edge squares, and a move may only end on an edge square if necessary for a capture. Or in other words, a piece may only end up on an edge square by making a capturing move that would not be possible without landing on the edge square. This includes moves that start on edge squares.'
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>Here is what the revised passage says. I have underlined and highlighted all additions.</P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
The 36 outer squares of the 10 x 10 Rococo board are marked in the diagram below. These marked squares on the edge of the board are edge squares, and a move may only <U STYLE='background-color: yellow'>pass over or</U> end on an edge square if <U STYLE='background-color: yellow'>it is</U> necessary for a capture. Or in other words, a piece may only end up on an edge square by making a capturing move that would not be possible without landing on the edge square. This includes moves that start on edge squares. <U STYLE='background-color: yellow'>Also, only the mininal number of edge squares may be passed over in order for the capture to occur, thus a Long Leaper on <B>x9</B> could capture an opposing piece on <B>x2</B> by landing on <B>x1</B> (assuming <B>x8-x3</B> were empty), but may not capture an opposing piece on <B>x2</B> by landing on <B>x0</B>. (<I>This is a clarification of the original rules which failed unambiguously to define the appropriate behavior in this case.</I>) Moves that captures multiple opposing pieces are not forbidden by edge squares -- the piece may move over as many edge squares as required for the capture. While a capture must be performed crossing as few as possible edge squares, when there is a choice among multiple possible captures, there is no requirement to choose the capture that crosses the fewist possible edge squares.</U>
</BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>Peter also adds a formal description, which I will skip here. According to what Peter says above, this is a clarification of the original rules and not a revision to them. But this is not obvious. For one thing, the only thing in the original text that leads to the interpretation that the Long Leaper move was illegal is the use of the definite article in one sentence that begins with the phrase 'in other words.' Furthermore, the original statement of the rules, as so interpreted, leads to paradox, as already described. The paradox is averted by adding the text 'pass over or,' as underlined and highlighted in the above passage. Taking the original text as written and assuming that a paradoxical interpretation would be wrong, we are left with your interpretation, which coincides with the interpretation Antoine used when writing the preset.</P>
<P>But the original text is not the only resource we have. There is also the ZRF, coded by Peter Aronson, one of the game's inventors. Since a ZRF requires a mathematically precise description of the rules, it may sometimes end up being more precise and accurate than the natural language description. When there is a discrepancy between the two, a judgement call has to be made over which is accurate. When the text description and the ZRF were both written by the same person, and that person is a creator of the game, he is naturally the most qualified person to make a ruling on the matter. Peter Aronson wrote both and is co-creator of this game, and he has previously indicated that the ZRF described the rules accurately, and that in the ZRF, the Long Leaper move in question would be illegal.</P>
<P>Anyhow, I have not examined the ZRF. But it appears to me that the best way to justify Peter's additions as clarifications and not revisions is to show that they correspond with how the ZRF enforces the rules. If they do match, and Peter stands by the ZRF description as the most accurate description of his original vision for the game, then it will stand that the move was illegal. Other than that, the only way to claim clarification is to assume that the original description seemed paradoxical only because it incompletely described the rules, and what Peter has added is just what must be in the rules to avoid the paradox.</P>
wrote on <p>Fergus,</p>
<p>I guess I assumed that you were reading the kibitz section for this game, since you replied promptly to my question on April 6, and since I thought the issue should be considered unresolved as long as the game was not progressing. Under this assumption, your silence seemed perplexing and aggravating, especially since my time was steadily trickling away. But my assumption was not justified, and I had no way of knowing whether it was true. So for my unpleasant comments based on this assumption, I apologize.</p>
<p>I thank you for the more complete explanation of your position, but I still disagree with some parts of it. I hope we can discuss them without rancor; I will try to do so, for my part.</p>
<p>I will respond point by point:</p>
<hr><blockquote>First, you should follow the rules of the game. This is given in the rules of the tournament.</blockquote>
<p>Agreed, provided 'the rules of the game' means the rules specified by the text that was available to the players at the start of the game. (For the sake of brevity, I will refer to this text as 'the original text'.) I consider this a matter of common sense.</p>
<hr><blockquote>Second, when there is a question on the interpretation of the rules, the ultimate authority on this matter is the creator(s) of the game. This is a matter of common sense.</blockquote>
<p>I can accept this (with some reservations based on unlikely hypothetical situations). If, after I had a chance to explain my thoughts, Peter and David both gave the same interpretation of the original text, I would defer to them.</p>
<hr><blockquote>David and Peter, the creators of Rococo, were both consulted on this matter, and they both ruled that the move in question was illegal.</blockquote>
<p>I disagree, if the relevant rules are those available at the start of the game. David's interpretation was indeed based on the original text, but Peter's was not. The crucial phrases 'or passing over' and 'that particular edge square' did not appear until Peter's first post to the Rococo comment board on March 29. And in his second post that day, he said:
<blockquote>However, that's not what I actually wrote when I wrote down the rules, so I can see why the rules would be intrepreted to allow captures by LL and W (and sometimes C) that start on edge squares to choose among multiple edge squares for their landing square.</blockquote>
This sounds to me like an explicit acknowledgment that his interpretation is not the only possible interpretation of the original text, if not an endorsement of my interpretation.</p>
<p>There's another important issue here that keeps falling through the cracks of the discussion. It is not sufficient to determine whether my move was legal or illegal. At least four interpretations of the original text have been proposed; we must determine which of the four applies to this game, since it will govern both the move in question and possible future moves in similar positions farther down the game tree.</p>
<p>It is therefore highly relevant that David and Peter did not give the same interpretation of the original text. David's interpretation does not allow 14. L x9-x1; Peter's does. Thus, even if I had accepted their posts as a definitive ruling that my move was illegal, I would not have been able to proceed with the game.</p>
<hr><blockquote>Furthermore, their interpretation of the rules did fit the
letter of the rules, and it is incorrect to say I based my decision 'on
Peter's statement of the rules that he had wanted but had not written.'
Peter's decision did fit the rules as written, and David had already made
the same decision, also based on the letter of the rules, before Peter had
even said anything on the matter.</blockquote>
<p>David's interpretation was based on the letter of the rules, as you say, but it is questionable, because of the paradox first pointed out by Michael Nelson. David has not posted anything since then.</p>
<p>I don't believe that Peter's decision fit the rules as written (what I'm now calling 'the original text'). I've explained my reasoning several times. If you believe it did fit the original text, can you explain why? If what I've said is wrong, can you point out my error?</p>
<p>Neither David nor Peter has posted anything pertaining to the interpretation question since my first post to the Rococo comment board, dated March 30. Perhaps I don't have an unalienable right to have my thoughts taken into account, but it seems reasonable for those in a position of authority to listen to all sides before passing judgment.</p>
<hr><blockquote>There has been no revision to the rules during the course of the tournament; there has only been a clarification.</blockquote>
<p>Whether there has been a revision to the rules is just what we are debating. There has at least been a revision to the <i>text</i> of the rules, which is what I meant when I used the word 'revision'. If the new text is equivalent to the original text, as you claim, then the revision of the text amounts to a clarification of the rules; if they are not equivalent, as I claim, then there has been a revision of the rules.</p>
wrote on Thomas,
Your recent comments here are nasty, ill-conceived, and out of line. My
position is simple and straightforward. First, you should follow the rules
of the game. This is given in the rules of the tournament. Second, when
there is a question on the interpretation of the rules, the ultimate
authority on this matter is the creator(s) of the game. This is a matter
of common sense. David and Peter, the creators of Rococo, were both
consulted on this matter, and they both ruled that the move in question
was illegal. Furthermore, their interpretation of the rules did fit the
letter of the rules, and it is incorrect to say I based my decision 'on
Peter's statement of the rules that he had wanted but had not written.'
Peter's decision did fit the rules as written, and David had already made
the same decision, also based on the letter of the rules, before Peter had
even said anything on the matter. There has been no revision to the rules
during the course of the tournament; there has only been a clarification.
As for my alleged silence on this matter, I did not see you recent
comments until just now. I have not yet made it part of my routine to
check the Kibbitz comments everyday.
wrote on Still disappointed but no longer surprised by Fergus's silence, and under duress due to the depletion of my time, I have retracted my legal move (14. L x9-x0). I maintain my belief that this move is legal, and that once made it may not be retracted under the rules of the tournament. Nevertheless I have been forced to do so. If I do not win this game, I will request a complete and impartial review of this fiasco, and I believe that Michael Madsen is also entitled to such a review if he does not win.
wrote on White has now a slight material advantage after some risky moves, taking advantage on some weaknesses in the position of Black, and we are in this moment in a very complex end, all can still happen in this extremely deep game, but for the moment White position seems to be slightly better. The game has been really interesting and of very high quality to the present.
wrote on Thanks for playing, Hans!. This game is not easy to play. To be honest, all could happen in this game, I have not had great confidence in the result because my position was vulnerable too a few moves ago and I didn
wrote on <p>Nothing in the written rules of the tournament says that Fergus alone has authority to interpret the rules of all games (even when both players agree). Perhaps we are to assume he has such authority, since he is in charge of the administration of the tournament. But if so, there is an interesting conflict of interest, since he is also a player in the tournament.</p>
<p>In my pre-tournament na
wrote on Thomas,
I believe your interpretation of the rules as written is the correct one,
since it can't be the inventors' intent to create a paradox and the
rules as written do so, as I myself pointed out. Therefor your move is
100% legal.
However, I would urge you to retract your move: The competant authority
has ruled it illegal, albeit incorrectly in our shared view. Said
competant authority is neither Peter nor David, but Fergus, who is in
charge of both Game Courier itself and this particular tournament, thus he
has the authority to make this determination. The fact that he made his
decision based on Peter's and David's is interesting but irrelevant to
the legal issue.
I have no experience in directing Chess/CV games but have extensive
experience as a club level Bridge director. The laws of both games (and
virtually all other games) are the same on this point--the director's
decision is to be followed, even when it is wrong.
You might indicate that your are retracting the move under protest and
inquire about what your appeal rights (if any) may be if you do not win
this game.
wrote on <p>Thanks for your comments, Greg. I'm glad that at least one other person has thought about this.</p>
<p>I can kind of see where you're coming from, but it's not as clear as you say. I agree that 'the' and 'any' are different words, and that the difference is relevant to the meaning of the first sentence you quoted. But the sentence as written is logically problematic. If we give this sentence the highest weight as you propose, then the legality of capture on one square is defined by this sentence in terms of the legality of capture on another square, which is defined by the same sentence in terms of the legality of capture on the first square, et cetera ad infinitum. This sentence is self-referential, which in general can lead to paradoxes, and in this case does. This sentence at best is inconclusive regarding the question of legality of capture on any particular square, and at worst breaks the game.</p>
<p>So since I can't make sense of that sentence, I look at the two other relevant statements in the rules. (All three of these statements ought to be, and at least seem to claim to be, equivalent. Perhaps one day there should be a debate concerning the merits of redundancy in rules of games.) Neither of the other two statements makes any reference to particular edge squares; they refer only to the act of landing on an edge square, giving the clear impression that one edge square is as good as another.</p>
<p>As for the intent of making it hard to hide from Leapers on the edge, perhaps I should state for the record that hiding from the Black Chameleon played no role in my decision to move to x0. In order to get to the x-file to attack my Leaper (if it were on x1), the Chameleon would have to capture one of my pieces, the position prior to this capture being subject to multiple constraints if the Chameleon is to go to an edge square. In short, this will only happen if the two players cooperate to make it happen, and I at least have other plans. My reason for moving to x0 rather than x1 was quite simple: to attack the Swapper on h8.</p>
<p>Of course, one can imagine other positions in which the capturing Leaper would have to worry about possible capture by an enemy Leaper or Chameleon, so the issue is relevant from a game-design standpoint. But it's not at all clear that allowing my Long Leaper to go to x0 (or in general, to any square other than the first beyond the victim) violates the intent of making it hard to hide from Long Leapers. It only seems that way when one is thinking only about a potential future capture <i>of</i> a Long Leaper by an enemy Long Leaper (or Chameleon). But we shouldn't ignore the fact that the rule in question is specifically that governing <i>the only means by which a Long Leaper can capture a piece on the edge</i>. So if we say that a Long Leaper capturing a piece on the edge should not have its choice of destination squares as it would in the interior of the board, we are in fact making it <i>easier</i> for the Long Leaper's victim (in this case also a Long Leaper; the present case is almost maximally confusing) to hide from a Long Leaper on the edge of the board. This seems contrary to the stated intention. (After writing this I've just noticed that Peter has further clarified his intention on the Rococo page.)
<p>Having said all that, I still haven't completely ruled out the possibility that I'm crazy. I welcome comments (but not unsupported orders) from anyone.</p>
wrote on Once you got my a and b pawns, you had a winning game. I didn't see how I could prevent you from queening a pawn and/or hanging onto my c pawn. My hope was my f, g, and h pawns, pinning your king where it wound up, and checkmating with the rook or a queened pawn. I didn't see how I could before you got a queen. You could clearly overpower my c pawn, leaving you with pawns on b and d, effectively unstoppable. Nice game.
wrote on At the point where you resigned, I was looking at some forced moves
here--after 1. Kb4 (forced), ...d6-d5 (discovered check with bishop at
f8)+ 2. (any drop), Bishop takes piece with check OR 2.Ka4, (P-P)*b5+
3.Ka5 Qb6 mate.
I thank you for the time and the game. I would be willing to try another
of the same, or another variant if you wish. You are a pleasant opponent
and I appreciate your playing.
wrote on 'Resign' with a capital R gave a syntax error because commands are case
sensitive.
My plan for this game was to exchange Rooks after you moved your back Pawn
forward, and then to win the Pawn race with my passed Pawn. But if you were
to refuse the Rook exchange, you might have had a fighting chance.
wrote on <p>Thomas, I completely agree with you that a ruling on your present situation should be based purely on the rules as written, as you were playing the game with those rules in mind. The 'deeper intent' of the inventor should not be relevant, except in-so-far as that intent is clearly stated in the rules.</p>
<p>My opinion: I have read the rules multiple times now, carefully, with attention focused on the present question, and it would be my opinion that the move you made is illegal. There may be a tiny bit of ambiguity, but not much IMHO. I think that the language that specifically explains the ring board should be given the heaviest weight, and I think this sentence mostly clears it up:<blockquote>A piece may only end up on an edge square by making a capturing move that would not be possible without landing on the edge square.</blockquote></p>
<p>It has been argued that this is still vague, but I don't think so. The alternate interpretation that you cannot land on an edge square unless it is impossible to make the capture without landing on <i>any</i> edge square is a different statement, and that's just not how I read it. I would also point out in the Notes and Comments section of the Rococo page, the author discusses the intent behind the ring board:<blockquote>The edge squares were to avoid pieces being able to hide from Long Leapers around the edges.</blockquote>Allowing you to go all the way into the corner when it is not necessary allows you to hide from capture by Long Leapers better than otherwise, and that clearly violates the stated intension of the ring board.</p>
<p>On a related matter, I find Fergus' comment puzzling and somewhat distressing. Fergus said:<blockquote>The last thing Peter said on this matter was 'the LL could leap to x1 to capture at x2, but not leap to x0 to capture at x2.' So take back the move and get on with your game.</blockquote>Fergus completely ignored the fact that Peter said that the rule was unclear, and he did not address any of Thomas' points. He just issued a very blunt command instead. I find it interesting that Fergus is willing to type out pages and pages of intelligent discourse with a certain symmetry-buff long after it was clear that the other party wasn't making and sense and no one else cared, but yet he can't be bothered to type more than two sentences slapping down Thomas McElmurry on an important tournament-related matter.</p>
wrote on Actually, the last thing Peter said on the matter was that the 'rule' you quote was not clear in the game description. That was an understatement on his part; that 'rule', whether it was his original intention or not, appears nowhere in the game description.
<p>I believe I made some valid points in my comments of 29 March, yet they have received no reply of any kind. If you disagree with what I said, it's only fair to explain how I'm wrong.
<p>Let me try to be as clear as I can be. I cannot in good faith take the move back, because tournament rules forbid the taking back of a legal move, and I believe my move was legal. I cannot in good faith continue the game without taking the move back, because others claim it was illegal. Therefore my only option is to do nothing until one side can convince the other, or until we reach an impasse, at which point perhaps the universe will cease to exist.
wrote on i forgot to remove your phantom pawn! the pawn on h4 shouldn't be there.
i also forgot to put the captured pieces in the holding cell, which was the point of this...
wrote on The last thing Peter said on this matter was 'the LL could leap to x1 to capture at x2, but not leap to x0 to capture at x2.' So take back the move and get on with your game.
wrote on I don't mean to delay the game unduly, but the rules of the tournament require that we determine whether my last move was legal. There has been a week of silence following the initial flurry of discussion. I still believe the move was legal, but Fergus's last statement was that it must be taken back. Fergus, if you're listening, can you tell us your current position on the matter?
wrote on [Comment deleted; it was intended for another game.]
wrote on Greg, the problem was that the Motif Shogi set, which you are using, does not contain images for Kamikazes, because I designed it before the invention of this game, and the $pieces array, which gets set in the set file, is what is used for identifying pieces in the game. So, the $pieces array did not include Z as a key, and that prevented Game Courier from recognizing the move Z*4e when it was your turn. To alleviate this problem, I have modified the set file for the Motif Shogi pieces to use its promoted Pawn images for Kamikazes.
wrote on I cannot move in this game. I get the error:
Syntax Error on line 185.
Z*4e is not a valid expression, because Z*4e is not a recognized piece,
coordinate, command, or subroutine.
wrote on What is life like for you there in South Korea?
Here in Georgia, I do a lot of running around with teaching and working; I
like to go to concerts and enjoy music. I play a bit of bocce (I just got
a new set) and I like to hang around my family. My brother's kids take
up a good bit of my mental landscape also.
How about you?
wrote on <p>I think only Michael can take the move back, since I took the liberty of making it again. Perhaps I shouldn't've done that, since it now appears that things are substantially less clear than I had thought. In any case, Michael should take the move back again; I think it's reasonable that it should be my clock ticking while we resolve the question.
<p>I actually see three separate questions here:
<p>1) What did Peter and David intend when they invented Rococo?
<p>2) What is the correct interpretation of the rules as they were actually written when this particular game began?
<p>3) If the answers to questions 1 and 2 are different, which should apply to this tournament game?
<p>I think questions 1 and 2 should be answered on the Rococo page's comment board, while question 3 should be answered within the context of this tournament.
<p>As for question 3, I think that this game should be governed by the rules as written, if a consensus can be reached regarding the answer to question 2. After all, my strategy in this game has been based on my understanding of the rules that I read, and the same is probably true for Michael.
<p>On the Rococo comment board, David has said that my move is illegal, but his interpretation is paradoxical. Peter has said that my move should be forbidden by the intended rules, but has admitted that what was written is somewhat different. I don't think either of them has given a definite answer to question 2, and as I said above I don't think that the answer to question 1 should dictate tournament procedure.
wrote on Peter Aronson and David Howe, the creators of this game, have both ruled that Thomas's 14th move is illegal. So he needs to take it back. Antoine should postpone fixing the preset until this is done, since it would otherwise break this game.
wrote on Oops! Sorry, I forgot that the Queen was the royal piece.
Also, I really don't blame Hans for having difficulty with this game; I
also was very concerned about this game because I'm not that good at CVs
anyway, and this game has 4 knight-riders, 4 dabbabah-alfil-riders, and 4
cannon-type pieces, all of which are extremely hard to visualize. I *did*
vote for the inclusion of this game, because it looks like a really neat
game which clearly deserves more study/play. I did not rank it in my top
12, however, because it is just so far beyond my level of skill. If Hans
had offered a draw instead of resigning, I would have accepted.
wrote on I was just going to point out the same thing. It is sad to see that this game ended so early without any real effort to play it on Hans' part.
wrote on You are right, the game is inherently violent, but this is the most bloody ('fatalities included', as in 'Mortal Kombat') Rococo game I have seen, it is like a war with massive destruction weapons.
wrote on I hope I'm not out of line for pointing this out....
Greg's second move (2. Lxf5) is not check, since the Black Queen is not attacked.
wrote on Yes, it has been quite bloody. This is my first game of Rococo, so I can't say for sure whether such violence is inherent in the game or whether it's just the way Michael and I have played. The edge squares make the Leapers quite a bit more powerful than in Ultima, and the Cannon Pawns behave very differently than Ultima's Pincer Pawns, although it seems that most of mine have been more like cannon fodder.
wrote on What a violence!. This game is a massacre, and all this on 13 moves, pieces die everywhere and everytime. I`m curious about the ends dynamics.
wrote on In 23th., Black has material advantage after the Rook promotion, and it is now the dilemma of Pocket Mutation Chess: How to win if the other player decides a good defensive plan?. For a win, Black needs checkmate White, and for it, pieces are needed, but if pieces are used in attack, some weak points can appear, and counter-attacks are very possible. I
wrote on Thank you for the game, Greg, and good luck in the rest, I expect you enjoy the Tournament, all of us can learn a lot with it. The clever was my Marshall, you missed a little its danger, but all was consequence of a few weaknesses you left in the opening. I have drawn other game, I
wrote on i tried to move in this game (c8-b10) and got this error message:
This preset now uses the new code for identifying check, checkmate, and
stalemate. Let me know of any problems with it.Syntax Error on line 393
wrote on My 17th, B g5-p1 was a blunder, better was 17: P d4-p1, but all was consequence of my 12th. risky move and the following attacking also risky moves. Now Black can obtain material advantage by promotion, but it could be my Bishop, depending on my past moves. Definitely, my 12th. was an error, but very difficult to see, due the deepness of this game. Fourriere played correctly, almost all moves could conduct Black to be defeated, but he found out the right way. Nice game, Antoine!... Morality: Taking risks can be dangerous in this game, it is extremely deep and very difficult to see all the consequences of a risky move (and danger should be important if the other player is Antoine).
wrote on Until move 12th, this game was well played, each player with his own strategy. Some of my next moves were very risky, and Antoine
wrote on Thanks to you, Carlos Carlos. This was an unfortunate setup, and we played it in such a way the game was finally blocked, perhaps it was not the intention, but we could not avoid it. I spent more than 40 minutes analyzing the position in my last move using a physical board, and it is clear that it is not possible forcing the game without great risks or conceeding material, so the game is going to be a draw in every case, in my particular opinion, once the game become more blocked than it is on 12th., position is so blocked that blunders are also difficult to be commited!. You played well, and I have only made defensive moves, without chances of nothing. Good luck nin the rest of the tournament, and enjoy your games!.
wrote on roberto, thanks for the game. after the last few moves i am happy to end
it here. there doesn't seem like anywhere to go in a hurry from this
position. we have both turned down chances to open the game up.
good luck with the rest of the tournament.
wrote on thanks for the game, mike! it's a shame it didn't last longer. i guess
it turned when you missed the potential for my ninth move.
from this position i was planning to follow by moving the queen to h1 for
another check, then mutating the queen into something stronger.
this was only my second game of this, but it is obviously a very cool
variant. i hope to play more games later on.
good luck in the rest of the tournament.
wrote on Looks like mate to me - if this was a tournament game we might have to poll all the players for a decision. Congratulations Carlos!
wrote on George, are you going to move anytime soon? Your next move is forced. It should be 10. K e1-d2.
wrote on Well, my vision is not the best, but in this game something is wrong or my eyes are worse than I supposed. What happened to Black King? (this piece is in hand by White, isn
wrote on Paulowich gambit (accepted)... Uuuhmmm, it sounds fine. We can begin giving names to some openings in different games, why not?, we are pioneers. I
wrote on 1. d2-d4;-d2
<p>1... c7-c5; -c7
<p>2. d4-c5;-d4
<p>2... a8-c6; -a8 // is the Paulowich Gambit (accepted), threatening 3...Champion x Pawn and 4...c5-c4, with a discovered mate by the Black Wizard. Black gets a savage attack, which I ended up spoiling with a speculative double Wizard sacrifice. Carlos put up a great fight in the second game - all the way to a 58 ply stalemate, with only 6 squares left on the board.
wrote on anyone reading this log should note that the original game was quickly won by david in five moves!
wrote on Some random set-ups are extremely incomodious for one or both bands in this game. As an excellent example, see this extremely bizarre instance. I feel sick in each move, I have not idea about what is good here and what is not, and I think it is the same with my contrincant.
wrote on White move 35 was a little mistake, but not a bad move necessarily, though. I considered Black move 34 as product of a wrong calculation, but the wrong am I, I can
wrote on Despite neither castling and awkward middle game, Falcon Chess has come out of it finally with a good position now that 23 pieces remain. If there are trades, White's passed e-pawn could be decisive, or Black's h- and g-pawns advanced to 5th already. Without trades, since 4 Falcons remain, a Falcon check likely eventually will fork and take minor N or B, or even a Rook, and the game end that way.
wrote on What is your site name at BrainKing? I play there also. I am Nasmichael there.
wrote on Black 41th, r g3-h4 was decisive, an excellent and not so easy to see move, I had to resign because I can
wrote on Black has material advantage in the end: Three Pawns, Coordinator and Long-Leaper against Guard and Long-Leaper, and an attack position. Nevertheless, it does not seem easy the victory for Black, and the reason is based on the Guard position, close to the Black Palace in a strong defensive attitude. I think Black must win, but I
wrote on How not to play Falcon Chess: White has 4 pawn islands, and Black 3 or 4 too. Yet there was logic each step, no real blunders. White is up four piece-points. It finally appears Black will not castle either. All Falcons remain, so win will come from a fork and grab of a piece.
wrote on I hope all is well with you--I await your next move.
wrote on Oops.
I must still be asleep.
wrote on 17... r j10-f10 was not good, it was better r a10-d10, but I think White has positional advantage, regardless the material.
wrote on The suggested 18...K-d6; Q-f4+ was the move I expected in the game, but as
David pointed out, it is not clear the end. After the suggested move,
Black mantains some chances of a victory, but White too!. I think Black
could try to find a zugzwang position, I visualized some possibilities,
but by this reason it would be far from easy for Black, I would be very
attempt on my moves. My particular opinion is that, after the suggested
18, the end is still a draw, if both teams play at a good level and
without blunders.
wrote on Andreas: I traded down to a 'safe' endgame. I still cannot decide who has the advantage after moves like
<p>18...K-d6; Q-f4+
<p>19.N-f3; R-h2
<p>19...Q-g4-g6+
wrote on Complex. Nice.
wrote on Very interesting game! Probably black shouldn't exchange Q vs R+N on 18th move. I think better would be 18.... Ke7-d6; Qg4-f4+. Certainly, it would be quite difficult for black to win.
wrote on 4.d1-b3; -d1 was my original plan, before I discovered a way to lose lots of material. After that, I concentrated on looking for any possible checkmates on the board. That has been working for me here - more often than it should!
wrote on I just need you to resend the move, making sure the piece captured is a black knight instead of the pawn. I can not correct it in the text.
wrote on Looks like checkmate to me. Congratulations Carlos!
wrote on oops, sorry. i just moved my champion diagonally. that's illegal. go back and make your previous move again and i'll do something different.
wrote on IF we need to end this game, we can; although, if you still wish to play this one also, I am willing.
wrote on IF we need to end this game, we can; although, if you still wish to play this one also, I am willing.
wrote on IF we need to end this game, we can; although, if you still wish to play this one also, I am willing.
wrote on yup, good game. every game i've played so far has been like this - you never seem to be without a chance in this variant.
wrote on 'A player in check must remove the check in the first half of his turn.'
<p>Black's move 10 is illegal.
wrote on Congratulations Andreas! One comment:
<p>After 42.N f4-d5+ k c7-b7? 43.b4-b5! traps the Black Queen. Which illustrates the old adage: 'When you see a good move on the board, always look for a better one.'
wrote on My 45.N*2d was a bad move. It should have been Rx6i instead. If you
took my N on 2d by Sx2d instead of 46.S*1b, you should have won the
game because there was a mate line to begin with B*4g and you could
respond to my Rx2d by L*2c which would be also threatmate to be
followed by B*4g.
Overall, your attack was very good. And giving up your R on 6a was
a nice judgement. Only one thing you should learn from this game is
that castling your King is important before attack.
wrote on Thanks for playing Altair, George... Yes, I
wrote on Actually the Checks will end. Instead:
44 c3-g3 h4-f6 45 g9-e6* f6-e7 .... One more piece for Black and the
Reducer well-positioned does it. Thanks again. Just think, no one else
would even understand those above moves, at least immediately.
wrote on Right, Roberto, you probably forgot a minute your own 'Kings not in line of sight'. I was planning i3-i6, but Black has continuous checks now. Thanks. Altair's a great game, and it gave me the idea for last week's 3D Positional Chess, where Altair credited. I am waiting for those 3D-Falcon games Quintanilla is making presets. I hope you will play-test 8x8x2 Falcon in GC.
wrote on This move: 44.- P c3-g3 saves White!. It was a very nice game with a tense end, but I have resigned without an exhaustive verification. After P c3-g3, Black has e g1-h2 Check, etc. and draw by perpetual check, if not, Black is going to be checkmated in four moves...
wrote on You start a game of Pairwise Drop Chess by choosing one of five pairs: RR, NN, BB, KQ, AM and placing the two pieces on your first rank. Bishops must be placed on opposite color squares. Each player must also copy the opponent's drops, placing pieces on the same files. This process uses up the first three moves of the game.
Each king may 'free castle' once in the game with either the nearest rook on its left side or the nearest rook on its right side. This variant idea comes from the Kibitzer article 'Bring Back Free Castling!' by Tim Harding. A Pawn promotes on the last rank to a Marshal/Chancellor, Queen, or Archbishop/Cardinal of the same color. Nothing else.
wrote on Thank you for accepting the challenge. Shogi is a new game to me; I am intrigued by the possibilities of the 'drop chess' style. Have you played many games before?
wrote on Hi Sagi & Eyal,
If you like playing Fischerandom Chess, I invite you to join the
Fischerandom Chess email Club!
Visit our webpage at:
http://frcec.tripod.com
To subscribe, send an email to:
frcec-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Cheers!
Jose Carrillo
FRCEC Moderator
wrote on Hi Taurus & Jean,
If you like playing Fischerandom Chess, I invite you to join the
Fischerandom Chess email Club!
Visit our webpage at:
http://frcec.tripod.com
To subscribe, send an email to:
frcec-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Cheers!
Jose Carrillo
FRCEC Moderator
wrote on Marsellais Chess is extremely violent!. It is difficult reach move 20th. My game against David Paulowich may be considered a marathon, but we played only a few moves after the 20th!. Interesting the ongoing game Leyva-Strong. Very nice to see and analyze...
wrote on Sorry, but I am cutting back on my internet games this month.
wrote on Sorry, but I am cutting back on my internet games this month.
<p>Note: I added a comment to your current Wormhole game concerning an illegal 4th move by Black.
wrote on ILLEGAL MOVE 4... g8-f6
<p>The only legal moves for that knight involve skipping over 'blue squares.' The paths traced out are:
<p>g8-g6-h5 and g8-f8-d6
wrote on Once again I had to 'CHECKMATE' you twice to win the game! If you had played Champion takes Knight, then your King would have an escape square on e7. In that case my plan was to sacrifice all my 'Queenside' pieces and try for a stalemate after:
<p>... Black Pawn-f4
<p>White PxP
<p>... Black King-g4.
wrote on Thanks for the game.
If you captured my pawn by Px2d instead of 42:Gx6f, then it shoud have
been uncertain which to win. After 42:Px2d, one variation would have been
as follows;
42: Px2d P*2g
43: S*2c Gx2c
44: Px2c+ Kx2c
45: Rx2g K3b
46: G*2c then I had 3 choices to escape my King to 3a, 4a or 4b. It
should have been very difficult to read through up to the end.
wrote on Thanks for the game.
Instead of 12;S-6d, R-7b should have been better. S-6d is a good move when
my left silver goes to 6g.
wrote on Having entered the moves through the Move command, it seems 14. b4-b5
captures the Guard on c5.
I don't know what happened.
I will be back in one or two weeks.
wrote on ok, you are right. i had only looked at the brief description below the board for rules instead of going to the actual rules page.
wrote on Roberto, you played a fine game and I'm rather surprised at the outcome
(though pleased!) Thank you ofr a good game.
In retrospect, the opening error proved decisive. The loss of two pawns
was made up, but his position became very cramped. Ironically in view of
our last game, Roberto might have done better allowing the exchange of my
Pushme-Pullyu for his Shield. It is an open question how much material
advantage I would have gained. My own belief is the it pays to trade a
Queen or PP for a Shield or Immobilizer if you have adequate offense
without the piece, but not if it leaves you on the defensive.
The game showed off the Archer and the technique of seting up spotters for
long shots. Also of note was a horrific threat from my Swapper, properly
countered--a mistake here would have ended the game then and there.
My hope is that these games will show Fugue as an excellent, deep game in
its own right--neither Ultima nor Rococco but a third thing with a beauty
and grace all its own.
wrote on Great game!, I have enjoyed it a lot, and it was a good learning for both players. Two Pawns against one is not necessarily a forced win in this game, as it is in FIDE-Chess, it depends strongly on the structure of Pawns. I
wrote on Pawns end. Black two Pawns, one in column a, other in c. White one pawn in column a. Is it a forced win?. I don
wrote on White has Queen and two Pawns, Black has Rook, Knight and one Pawn, after simplifications. Logic says that White has the main chance to win the game, I think this may be the result, but I don
wrote on Roberto was thinking about playing 16. Kf1; Rh5. In that case I was planning to advance my passed pawn with 16... c7-c5-c4. White is better off attacking with the Rook and Knight, as he did in the game.
wrote on This game has been very interesting. David surprised me with a very good move in 8th. turn (!!) which I have not expected, and my response was a move conducting to an exchange of my Queen by Rook-Bishop, because I have not seen another best in that moment, preserving my Queen was an option which I discarded because my position could fall down quickly. My posterior analysis has shown to me that my selected move was absolutely correct, perhaps the only move to preserve certain chances (!?). We are now in a very difficult end (Queen vs. Rook-Knight and three Pawns per band) in which all can still happen, but by the moment Black preserves an important tempo advantage, nevertheless, pieces can
wrote on There is no checkmate! White still has 'Pawn takes Lion'. I made a wallpaper diagram of the board position after the Lion check - had my supper - and took a last look at the diagram before making my move.
wrote on Season's Greetings! I will return to my games here around 0800 Dec. 26.
wrote on and i've forgotten to wormhole a square again... g8 should be blank.
wrote on 'Checkmate Confusion' has started on move three! This would be a good time to point out that our previous game of Wormhole Chess actually ended in a victory for Carlos. See the COMMENTS section for the remaining moves of that game.
wrote on After 11... Kd6 12. Ac5+ Kc6 13. Ma5+ Kd5 14. Nc3 checkmate
all the active White pieces are on dark squares. This is the secret to bypassing Black's strong grip on the light squares. A similar mating attack also works against 10... d7-d6. The position after 10. Af5 is extremely complicated - I had a reply to 10... Md6, but I forget what it was! Certainly not 11. Axi8? Bh7! 12. Axh7 Axh7 and Black still has a small material advantage.
wrote on 4... p b7-c6 seems good for Black. At this point, White seems to be slightly better positioned, but the game is still in the first moves.
wrote on White choices for Move 4 include:
A. d2-c3, making Pawns cluster like Lavieri says. Pawns could then double
step to any of a4, b4, c4, d4,depending on Black's response. Mostly it
begins to confront LL on f6.
B. 'LL f1-d3 Check' looks good too.
wrote on 3...l f8-f6 mostly to defend from 4. A g1-g5, taking Pawn, as well as to
develop the Long-Leaper.
Zillions seems to agree with me here. It would respond with 4. L g1-g4,
threatening Black's Long-Leaper, an interesting move willing to trade the
Advancer for the Long-Leaper.
wrote on Actually, I was planning on moving my anti-king to c3, so putting the pawn there is probably a really good move. I think I want to keep the king ahead of the pawns. I'm not sure whether I should move the anti-king now, (probably to d4) or not. If I do not, I will be forced to do so next move when Tony develops the bishop. Otherwise, I'd probably play p e7-e6, or g7-g6.
wrote on Larry's idea for protecting the anti-king in the end game is interesting.
<p>Roberto makes an interesting observation that the strategy with respect to material is not maximization, like in chess, but optimization, which is actually a balance, depending on the position. Antoine's reply that material is always an advantage because it provides more options is very keen. However, Roberto's observation that a well placed sacrifice can lead to an anti-checkmate combination seems accurate.
<p>Roberto's observation about a strategic decision to keep the AK either in front or behind the opponent's Pawns is important. Antoine's suggestions for forcing this decision without exposing one's King is the start for AK Chess opening theory, it seems. At first thought, I would be inclined to keep the AK in front of the Pawns, since this would seem to provide more options in the middle game, although harder to maintain in the opening.
<p>Based on these interesting comments, it seems that 3. P c2-c3 may be a good move, with the objective of forcing a decision on the AK's strategy. Of course, e3 is available, as Antoine observes. Another advantage of this move it that it prevents the advance of Black's Knight to b4 and d4. It also would support a future, P d2-d4. It also maintains an open diagonal for the King's Bishop.
<p>This move, however, delays development of the pieces. But, as Roberto observes, material advantage is always a balance in this game.
<p>Zillions is undecided about the next move, with some preference for 3. c4. This would seem to force the AK to decide to either retreat or remain behind the Pawns. I think that Antoine's 3. c3 is superior.
<p>
<p>
wrote on I insist, excess or default of material is good or not depending on position, it is not an unique logic here, as in Chess. In some situations, you may be winning precisely by the high material disadvantage. I
wrote on Material is still a positive factor. Of course you can't give your Queen
for nothing, but you will also (nearly) always be able to put your Bishops
quickly out of reach of the Anti-King, so there is no reason to discard
them prematurely. True, a buried Rook may be a greater liability, but if
you keep a Knight cavorting near an unmoved Rook to and from its own
starting square, you should often be able to give perpetual check even in
an otherwise losing situation, and I feel there should be a higher
percentage of draws at AKC II than in many variants. There is also the
possibility that two Pawns block each other, with the two Anti-Kings
facing each other now protected once and for all. Now the game will end
purely as Chess. To sum it up, Anti-King Chess is not Othello. More
material gives you more options, not less options.
As for openings, I think I prefer 1.e3, 2.c3 and 3.Ke2 for White. It
forces the Black Anti-King to choose early on which side of the White
Pawns it will hav eto remain. 1.e4, 2.c4 and 3.Ke2 would do that too, but
it gives the Anti-King the option to go to c3.
1.e3, 2.c3 and 3.Ke2 also avoids contact with the Black Pawns, hence it
buys more time to strangle the Black Anti-King before the White King gets
in real danger.
wrote on At Move 3:There are no immediate threats like last turn's B.Advancer to b3, capturing a-pawn. I like g2-e4, opening W.Advancer and disclosed possibilities for W.Swapper. And welcome any suggestions before moving in an hour. g2-e4 also carries awareness Lavieri cites of having active pawns as these Cannons are almost of piece value. I could have worded Move 2 Comment better and clarify later with [Brackets]. It's actually White Advancer that now threatens to come out after Move 3.
wrote on Opening the Advancer diagonal was intended primarily to develop the advancer and the Long-Leaper not attack the a-file Pawn. Why would this be bringing it out early?
<p>I am considering, 2... p b7-a6. The purpose would be to develop the Immobilizer diagonal and the b-file for the Withdrawer. Another purpose would be to begin to defend against the advance of White's Immobilizer.
<p>Another option is 2... p d7-d6. This opens the diagonals for the Chameleon and Long Leaper. It also beings to defend against the Immobilizer.
<p>The alternative would be to develop a piece, such as, 2... f8-f6, defends against the Immobilizer and also moves to control the center.
<p>carlos' comment about Pawn structure is interesting.
wrote on There are two possible strategies for the Anti-King: mantaining it behind the line of pawns, or trying to move it if front the line of Pawns. I essayed the first strategy against Fourriere. I have lost my game, but I
wrote on When accessed the LOG for this ongoing game, as spectator, I saw this
statement:
'Game Courier Warning: The current behavior of endif is being deprecated
in favor of a command that closes off all iflevels to the last if
statement, not counting elseif statements as if statements. Properly
written code will work with the change, but the code for this game does
not.'
wrote on For anyone looking at this who hasn't read rules yet, it's simple: they all move like Queens. However, none of them capture like Queen, each having own unique form of capture. Differently, Swapper 'swaps' along Queen-lines. And Chameleon imitates its victim(s)' form(s) of capture along Queen-lines. Immobilizer moves Queen-like but only immobilizes adjacently. Even standard FIDE King here could be considered one-step Queen.
wrote on Development of Cannon-Pawns is important, much more important than it appears, but it must be made taking care on Advancer and Withdrawer. Clusters are good to avoid Long-Leapers threats.
wrote on An ideal position for an Anti-King would be diagonally adjacent an opposing
Bishop that is on a corner cell. Since the Anti-King cannot be actually
captured, the Bishop cannot move.
Might there be other positions just as advantageous?
wrote on At Move 2: It's annoying to have to defend against Advancer. [In principle, in any case like this:]Black's actually bringing it out early[If Black were to] is sort of like going immediately for the unprotected c-pawn in Falcon Chess: deja vu and refutable. This has to be done though, so I'll play a2-b3 if there's no other recommendation within 10 minutes. ['Playing Advancer early' is also a reference to Aronson's abstraction below that 'many players like to start by exposing their Advancer.' He apparently has observed many Rococo games.]
wrote on looks like
<p>22. a3-a5;-a3 // CHECKMATE, as the P(b2) defends the P(d4) which defends e5. Congratulations! I have been using the game diagram as Windows Wallpaper on my computer since move 1, unfortunately that mostly helped me to find good moves for you. I believe that you also had a forced mate after:
<p>20. g3-b3;-g3
<p>20... g4-c4;-g4 // Ch x P
<p>21. b3-c4;-b3 // K x Ch
wrote on great idea! i've just noticed this. should be good with george playing
and an inventor and players like roberto and antoine kibbitzing.
i like this game a lot. my first effort against george i was totally
lost, and while i think i am putting up an improved effort in our second
go, i confess to playing with a very shallow plan. i don't have any good
ideas about position management. i have noticed george is kind of
smothering me with his pawns, it seems more important to get a flank of
pawns forward (in the center i guess) than i first thought.
peter, i don't know if you noticed, but this exact issue came up in my
game with george. we resolved it after looking at the animation.
wrote on You may capture a piece that is adjacent to the Long Leaper, but you may not capture a piece that has another piece adjacent to it in the line of movement. It's an awkward usage, and I should rephrase it.
wrote on Following Peter's logic a bit, I am considering 1...p f7-g6. The purpose would be to open the diagonals for the Advancer and the f-file for the Long-Leaper. Opening a diagonal for the Advancer might counteract the future advance of the White Long-Leaper. It also allows development of the LL. The general goal would be similar to standard Chess, develop the pieces and stablish control of the center. Advancing the f-Pawn also counteracts White's advance.
<p>Interestingly, Zillions would respond with 1...p e7-f6.
<p>Peter, I have a question about the Long-Leaper move rule: can it capture an adjacent piece? The minirules say LL may never jump over adjacent pieces, but Zillions allows it. The automated moves also show the ability to capture adjacent pieces. Am I misreading the description?
wrote on Either c7-c5 or e7-e5 seem like good moves. 1...e7-e5 might have had the advantage of opening a Bishop diagonal, but it also adds another attacker for the Anti-King.
<p>The opening is quite different from standard Chess in that the Anti-Kings interfere with development. I'm considering 2. P b2-b3. The purpose would be to open the Queen's Bishop diagonal. It also has the advantage of blocking the advance of your Pawn on the c-file. The alternative could be 2. P g2-g3 to open the other King's Bishop's file. This may be the better alternative to remove the Bishop threat to the Anti-King. Standard development of the Bishops by advancing the Queen and King Pawns does not seem practical.
wrote on should have known!
no, i'm not interested in taking back moves. (i don't think of this
continuation of the game as a take-back. the only reason i typed in
'resign' was that the program was refusing to send the move with only
the game status changed and nothing in the moves field. if we were at a
table, you would have let me know there was a valid move. or even if one
did take it as an official resignation, then i would rather see this as
post-match analysis than taking back a move.)
let's try
22. a3-a5;-a3.
wrote on I meant to write: 'Do you want to play 21. Lion X Champion instead?
wrote on 21. c1-a3;-c1
<p>21... d6-d5;-d6 // K x N
<p>Do you want to play 21. Ch X Ch instead?
wrote on A Pawn promotes on the last rank to a Marshal/Chancellor, Queen, or Archbishop/Cardinal of the same color. Nothing else.
wrote on c1-a3;-c1//checkmate? if you agree this is checkmate, i'll start another
game up.
i've only tried omega chess once. it was interesting, but not exactly
inspiring. did you buy an official board?
this game is cool. i didn't find the lack of gridlines a problem really.
my problem was that when i was visualising a move, i was failing to
visualise the newly wormholed square, which can often make the position
quite different.
wrote on This variant expands on an idea from the Kibitzer article 'Bring Back Free Castling!' by Tim Harding. A king may free castle with either the nearest rook on its left side or the nearest rook on its right side. When the players drop the kings on the a-file and the rooks on the b-file and i-file, for example, the only possible castling move is switching the king and the b-file rook. The 'outside rook' can never take part in castling. This rule could even be used in variants with more than two rooks for eack player.
More often the rooks will be on opposite sides of the kings. Suppose White has K(c1), R(a1), R(j1) and none of these pieces have yet moved in the game. Let Black have K(e3) and Q(e4). White to move can free castle only by moving the king to d1, e1, f1, or g1. Since the Black queen attacks h1, the king can neither end its move on h1 nor pass through that square to i1 or j1. The rook on j1 can move in free castling to c1 or to any other square between c1 and the one the king ended its move on.
wrote on 20. g3-h3;-g3
<p>20... g4-c4;-g4 // Ch x P
<p>I used to play only three games at a time and made use of my Omega Chess set. Playing this game 'on the screen' turned out to be a bad idea. For example, I believe you had a simple win with 12. c3-c6;-c3 // check! The game board would be much easier to read if it had grid lines, like the shatranj board.
wrote on 20. g3-h3;-g3
to make this move i dedided i had to set up a board. i just used my
normal chess board and pieces plus a couple of kids' toys. i put coins
on all the wormholed squares. i don't usually play these online games
with a board in front of me. do you?
wrote on Choose one of five pairs: RR, NN, BB, KQ, AM
and place the two pieces on your first rank. Bishops must be placed on opposite color squares. Each player must also copy the opponent's drops, placing pieces on the same files. This process will take three game moves for each side.
wrote on Immobilizer is of more value in Ultima than Rococo, but I agree, Roberto, Imm. is still the strongest piece, increasing in value as game progresses.(I believe Antoine is able to end his games earlier than the rest of us and so would not value Imm as much.) What is this board size? Of course 100 squares, but I reduce that to 82 (64 + 18), counting half for each only-partly-accessible ring square, for purposes of comparison with other games. Value of Pawn(Cannon)and your higher estimate may depend on style of play before a game has been over-analyzed like FIDE Chess. They like to say precise value really depends on position, but you never hear it depends on style of play in a game that has been beat to death like that one.
wrote on Well, in my opinion, Advancer and Long-Leaper values are more or less the same, but I differ about Immobilizer, I think its value is around 12. And for me, Cannon Pawns value is almost the same than Withdrawer value: 3 (don
wrote on oh, good. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't confused about the rules :)
The reasonable responces seem to be e7-e5 or c7-c5. I need to consider
some; the fact that both of our Queen's Pawns are pinned sure upsets the
opening theorey...
wrote on I am happy to allow one 'take-back' per game. I actually typed CHECKMATE after my move, but caught my mistake just before sending! Since this PBM preset apparently cannot be changed now, I will accept your suggestion to use Kibbitz Comments to send moves. Also, any time you wish to play Wormhole Chess again, just set up a game with 'david_64' as your opponent.
<p>19. e1-g3; -g3
<p>19... h4-g4; -h4 // check!
wrote on I am now using Chameleon 5, LL8, Advancer 8, Swap 5, Immobilizer 10, Withdrawer 3, Cannon Pawn 2. There are two LLs, so I think Advancer stays even with it. Swapper has underutilized potential, and I may eventually give it the point back vis-a-vis Chameleon. Really W about 3.3, C. Pawn 1.8?
wrote on I wrote that I would reverse George's values for the Advancer and the
Long-Leaper and also for the Swapper and the Chameleon. I still feel that
way.
The Long-Leaper can perform multiple captures and has often the choice
between several arrival squares, hence it is much more difficult to guard
a piece against it than against the Advancer. Maybe the Long-Leaper is
even more valuable than the Immobilizer, because when you have lost your
Immobilizer, you become able to promote a Pawn to an Immobilizer next to a
piece which would otherwise capture it.
The Chameleon threatens the Immobilizer, the Long-Leaper and the Advancer
more than the Swapper does.
wrote on oh.
this game is confusing me. i can move to g3, can't i. so it's not
checkmate. but i ended the game, so i don't think we can continue.
umm... i move e1-g3;-e1 if you want to finish it by kibbitz.
wrote on The detailed history is interesting to me since I have been studying CVs for twelve years. For all that, there are only five GC games recorded, including two ongoing. Unfortunately I do not yet have Zillions. Maybe there or elsewhere some tremendous factor more games of Rococo are being played that I don't know about. I think it deserves wide recognition. It would be more worthwhile having a thousand Rococo players than ten players of each of fifty different games of an individual's creation. I mean that generally for any supposed prolific games inventor.
wrote on Greg, you are correct, of course. I got the friendly versus the opposing Anti-King confused. My 'goals' should be reversed.
In that light, 1. P e2-e4 is a neutral move; since the Anti-King is still attacked by the King's Bishop.
wrote on Well, I'm curious about your opening, but with only one move, I can't really say much yet. I've noticed that many players like to start by exposing their Advancer, while lately I've been experimenting with getting either the Swapper or the Withdrawer out early and then trying to use the leveling effect of weaker pieces to allow me to get some early material advantage.
<p><hr><p>
Interesting set of guesses about who did what to Rococo, and not too far off. As I remember the sequence, David and I fell into correspondence about pieces and features for a possible Ultima revision shortly after the Robert Abbott interview (in which all of the editors were polled for questions). At some point I put together a 'strawman' design for a revised Ultima, which added the ringboard (borrowed from Jumping Chess) and replaced the Pincher Pawns with Cannon Pawns (which were a rationalized version of my Wallaby piece from Edgehog Chess III) and replaced the Coordinator with the Swapper, which did not have capture by mutual destruction yet (all of these features were there to address Abbott's complaints that the Pincher Pawns and Coordinator were too unclear, and that the Long-Leapers were too hindered by pieces hugging the edges). David added the Advancer, and reordered the array (in two steps), and at some point in the playtesting, we added Pawn promotion. The last touch was the Swapper capture by mutual destruction, as I was sort of worried by the low value of the piece (Fergus, who was also in the correspondence, but went his own way with Superemo, disagreed).
<p>
At the end, David and I figured that what we had wasn't Ultima any more.
wrote on I think the comments should be posted as early as possible, so that your
advice may be considered. The goal, as I understand it, is to have as
high-level a game as possible because of maximum input.
The value of the pieces is obviously important in this game. George Duke
suggested these values on Jan 30th, 2004: Immobilizer 10, Advancer 8, LL
7, Swapper 5, Chameleon 4, Withdrawer 3, Cannon Pawn 2. Anyone have an
alternate view of piece values?
wrote on For this different format, I for one have a mindset for any and all comments of any kind, move suggestions welcome. As to design, Rococo is excellent game, the best in its family, partly because of manageable number of piece-types, so player does not dwell on constantly interpreting rules. Cannon pawns probably came more from Aronson's devotion to minutia coming up with the best alternative pawn to date. Back rank mix of non-custodial forms (altering Ultima) seems more from David Howe's broadly-balanced creativity.
wrote on You can't blame Tony for various proposed additions or variants to Rococo -- those are my fault, perhaps aided and abetted a bit by Antoine Fourri
wrote on I thought I understood Anti-King, but now I suspect that one of us has things backwards... Your goals 3 and 4: '3) continuing threat of the opposing Anti-King, 4) isolating the friendly Anti-King' but this is the opposite of how I understand the rules. You said that 1. P e2-e4 is good because it maintains the attack on the anti-king, but as I understand the game, the goal is exactly the opposite. You don't want to attack my upside-down King ... (I think)
wrote on No more running on and on about changing the rules: Rococo 2002, suspend belief as if it were the ONLY form of chess at some locked-forsaken computer lab or bubble universe.
wrote on It seems to me that the opening of Anti-King Chess II should have the following goals: 1) control of the center, 2) development of pieces, 3) continuing threat of the opposing Anti-King, 4) isolating the friendly Anti-King. The first two goals coincide with standard chess and are more important. Like checkmate of the King, checkmate of the Anti-King will likely be a goal of the late-middle or end game. Based on the above, I would suggest that 1. P e2-e4 is a good opening move. The threat to the Anti-King is maintained.
wrote on Observe this open-kibbitz game! You can make any kibbitz comment during the game as long as it is polite and constructive. You need not worry about influencing the players. Comments suggesting moves, lines of play, strategy, or constructive criticism are welcome, especially if your reasoning is expressed. The main purpose of this game is study of Anti-King Chess II rather than competition. Even comments informed by computer analysis or other sources are welcome as long as the source is made clear in the comments and your reasoning for the suggestion is expressed. The players will make use of the comments as they see fit in making their moves.
wrote on check
wrote on whoops, i forgot to blank f3.
wrote on All I see is the Starting Position. When I click on VIEW, I get the following message:
<p>'You may not move a P from d2 to d4'
wrote on To all interested parties:
Paul Grosemans and I are Chess players trying to make the transition to
the world of Shogi. We both have read 'Shogi for Beginners' by John
Fairbairn. We have agreed to play the opening sequence, of the
classification 'static rook vs. static rook', as described beginning on
page 81. So, however the game turns out, at least the opening will be
well-played :) I will post more on this game later, as I learn things
worthy of mention ...
wrote on If any onlookers expected White to play Chancellor x Knight 'mate' on move 35 or later, then they were confused by the crowned knight symbol used in this preset. As pointed out in my previous comment, the Knight on k6 is defended by the Black Chancellor on k8. I believe that the first time in this game a Chancellor has actually moved two squares in a straight line was on Black's move 37.
wrote on Thank you. You play fast, do you mind to play another Shogi game?
wrote on Roberto is putting up a most impressive defense, especially for a variant
that is new for him. This is shaping up to be an excellent game. If I can
break through his strong defense I expect to win--if not, the Ultima Gods
help me when his counterattack comes.
This game shows the power of the Shield quite clearly. It's a vital piece
in the opening and middlegame, but not that useful in the endgame: King and
Shield can't mate lone King and loses vs. King and any non-shield
piece--sooner or later King and Shield have to separate or lose by triple
repetition. King and Immobilizer vs. King and Shield is a particularly
easy win as it doesn't require the King an Shield to separate--immobilize
them both and win by stalemate.
Yet averaged over the game, the Shield is almost as strong as the
Immobilizer--probably stronger in the opening.
Notice also how a purely defensive piece enhances attack. My Pushme-Pullyu
is exerting terrific pressure on Roberto's positon with impunity, as it is
uncapturable while next to the Shield.
wrote on I have found out a clearer way for White to obtain a drawn position, my analysis was weak in move 47. I
wrote on Drawn game accorded. After extensive analysis, I found a line (In my opinion, the best moves for both after 44th., but in other analyzed promising lines I have found more or less similar characteristics. Interested people can look at the comment in my last move, in the LOG, to see the sequence of moves from 44th. to 50th, the main line.) in which White can reach a position that seems to be a theoretical draw after the 50th, regardless the material Black advantage reached in this line. If it is possible a win, it must be more due to blunders made by any of both teams, but I don
wrote on Judging by the name of the log, you set the time limits, carlos. After someone has run out of time, you're not supposed to continue.
wrote on Very interesting end of game, we are on 43th. and we have not Maxima theory of ends available, so intuition, positional concept and short-range calculations are the only tools. Surprisingly, after the middle of this game in progress, I have noted that many moves may seem equally promising at first view in each turn, but after some analysis, majority of them were considered bad or weak ones, and only a few, a couple, or only one in some cases, were reasonably good, so this end has been carefully played by both bands. White has material advantage, Black has Immobilizer. Black position is somewhat vulnerable, but White can
wrote on OOPS, not check as Roberto's King is shileded. Still a good move picking off the pawn, though.
wrote on http://www.chessvariants.org/large.dir/contest/kings-court.html
<p>is the first web page I consulted before signing up for this game. The chancellor diagram shows a 'Q2N' move - it can move one or two squares like a queen or make a normal knight move. This preset uses crowned knight symbols for the chancellors, which might confuse some players. Especially if they are thinking about the different definition of the chancellor given in the (lesser) Kings Court variant on the commercial site.
<p>The King
wrote on who set those silly time limits?
how do we continue?
wrote on What happened to the record of moves 8-9-10? Is there a backup copy of this game somewhere?
wrote on Black has been in check ever since White played:
<p>'8. e2-e5 // check'
wrote on ok, how did I type in moves
wrote on Ralph Betza's Half-Duck also appears (with a name change) in Lions and Unicorns Chess. This 80 square variant is so 'trappy' that the ChessV program has twice tossed away material against me in the opening. The ZRF I was using in those PBM games is now included in the Alfaerie.zip file.
wrote on Successive White switches Moves 7 & 8 (and Black's oversight) snare the Queen and Black becomes untenable. Held up as replacement for FIDE Chess (like FRC), only flaw in Switching Ch. is bizarre openings, such as switch to start 1 R h1-g2; P-h1 -- effective but peculiar for wide acceptance. As CV though I think SwC superior to most the CVs Recognized here.
wrote on Strictly of course, Remarkable Rookies can checkmate Colourbound Clobberers in two moves, the Fool's Mate.
wrote on Note the Ralph-Betza-ridiculous Fool's Mate in four by Paulowich here, no doubt a record. By contrast, see Switching Chess 'near-Fool's Mate' Duke-Quintanilla, ongoing.
wrote on Interesting game, but I
wrote on It's corrected. I had copied an endif which should have become an endif 3, because there are four possible castling moves. Hence, it were not the Kings, but their starting squares, which were in check. (And the flags also didn't disappear.)
wrote on There are problems with the way this preset enforces the rules. At the moment, it will not let me make my only legal move because it says I would be moving into check.
wrote on The rules description on the Game Courier page needs to be changed. It states that the Cavalier moves one space <i>forward</i> and then one diagonally. I played the game assuming this was the rule--my fault for not checking the full rules page which gives the Cavalier's move as one square <i>orthogonal</i> followed by one square diagonal.
wrote on Hi, Uri, Hi, Erez: Just thought I ought to tell you of one error in the rules--the Princess does NOT capture, according to Edgar Rice Burroughs; this preset is new. I've asked Tony to post the change, which I think he'll do soon. Thanks, James Spratt
wrote on Apparently I've been careless and let my time run out. I hate to lose that way, but I probably would have lost the game anyway. Having lost my central pawns and being behind in development, I didn't have very good prospects. Congratulations, carlos.
wrote on My 24th., b f3-h5 (Check) was not, perhaps, the best move. I think that 24: b f4-g5 would offer better possibilities, but I
wrote on Well, thank you, Roberto, but I spent a lot of time on some moves, and it
sure reflects on the outcome. (In particular, it dawned to me only after
nearly an hour that my Rook was not so useful if I could exchange the
Queens; if I had spent less time, I would have played 17... r h8-f8 and I
would have had my Queen buried for good.)
AKC asks two questions:
1. must you try to mate the King or the Anti-King?, to which my response
is that the Anti-King is a better target. (Capablanca Anti-King Chess II
might need a different answer.)
2. must you advance the Anti-King behind the enemy Pawns? (I don't think
so, but that's certainly debatable.)
wrote on Antoine has played superb, and won in this intense game. My opening was not the best, nevertheless, I consilidated an attack position against the King, and Antoine threatened against my Anti-King, in a kind of fight Chess vs. Anti-King Chess II. After a sucession of very good moves, I tried a trick conceeding a Rook in move 24 that Antoine correctly rejected, and his response was a bishop move on 25th. that was a non-trivial and difficult to see move that I qualify as extremely good (!!), because my plan against the enemy King was ruined by only one time of difference, time that I needed to perform an effective attack against the King looking for, at least, perpetual Check, or a checkmate attack that should not be completed, because Antoine has had the possibility of perpetual check against my Anti-King since some moves before. Once I calculated I have not the time to perform an effective attack, Instead of attack the King, I attempted essay other confusing threatenings, but there was not time. My opening and initial plan were not the best for this game, I did my best, although my ideas in AKCHII are relatively modest, it is difficult to me play this game in a better manner, it is contrary to the phylosophy of games I like. Nevertheless, it was a very good game, and Antoine proved his skills playing with notorious precision. He is a really strong player. Congratulations, friend. I enjoyed this game!.
wrote on No, it's legal. The Pawn has been converted.
wrote on Black move 16: ...q d5-f5, is illegal
wrote on Why sacrifice a Pawn on the first move? It all comes down to search depth. In some lines the White Unicorn can capture the Rook on i8, but it will be trapped after ... Knight j7-h6. These lines may register as 'false victories' in computer analysis.
Running Zillions-Zillions test games at 3 minutes per moves can be extremely effective, but it it cannot rescue a game from human error. After Zillions came up with 8. Bishop e2 - j7, Pawn h6 x i5 9. Bishop j7 x i8, Knight f7 - h6 it was clear that I had tied myself up in knots trying to hang onto the extra Pawn. I chose to capture the Bishop and gamble on my opponent missing the best continuation, a strategy which has served me well over the years. Not this time! Congratulatons to ChessV and its creator.
wrote on 'Any Pawn may make an initial double move. Whenever a double move takes a Pawn to a space horizontally adjacent to an enemy Pawn, the enemy Pawn may take it by en passant on the next turn. On reaching the last rank, a Pawn promotes to a Chancellor, Queen, or Unicorn, but not to any lesser piece.'
This should replace the definition of a Pawn in the Lions and Unicorns variant, which lacks the more complex initial setup of Unicorn Great Chess. Another suggestion: both of these variants could simply link to themselves when you click on the RULES button. At present they link to a Great Chess rules page, a legacy of the Great Chess preset they were based on.
wrote on In this second game of Lions and Unicorns Chess, White is ChessV and Black is ZPaulowich (a combination of me and Zillions 1.3.1). The Unicorn moves like a Bishop or a Nightrider, while 'Lion' is another name for Ralph Betza's 'Half-Duck'.
My three games on this site are using an obsolete email account that expires on October 31. I don't even have an email program on my primary computer and hope to continue playing in November without this emailing moves feature.
wrote on 1. Pawn e2 - e4
1. Pawn e7 - e5
2. Knight j2 - h3
2. Knight j7 - h6
3. Pawn f2 - f3
3. Pawn f7 - f6
4. Bishop g1 - e3
4. Knight a7 - c6
5. Lion j1 - j4
5. Lion j8 - j6
6. Lion j4 x j6
6. Pawn i7 x j6
7. Knight a2 - c3
7. Lion a8 - a6
8. Bishop d1 - e2
8. Lion a6 - d6
<p>looks reasonable to me. But opening lines do not come with a warranty. My previous note showed the loss of tempi resulting from Black playing Lion a8-a6 one move later (move 6). So the line in that note is a positional blunder, at least at the master level. And the line played in our game ended in a tactical blunder. Hard to spot exactly when it happened, especially when I am running a weaker chess program.
<p>I am happy to take the Black pieces in Game 2, as long as you are aware that it may terminate on October 31. I have no intention of changing my personalid file here to include my new email address. I will post more details on that PBM page.
wrote on When you say that black was supposed to play 6. ... Lion j8-j6, do you mean that black should have played that to avoid the opening trap, or do you mean that it fell into the trap even worse than expected? To put it another way, what do you think is the first bad move black made, and what move would have been better? I will use this information to add to the opening book, ensuring that, at least, it doesn't make this particular mistake again...
wrote on My 533 MHz computer (AMD K6-2) runs Zillions 1.3.1 at 3 minutes per move, for both sides. After watching TV for an hour, I can return and examine one possible future for the game. This is more important to me than finding a theoretical 'best move', which I would most likely disagree with anyway. Also, I prepared an opening trap. Black was supposed to play: 6 ... Lion j8 - j6 7. Lion j4 x j6, Pawn i7 x j6 8. Pawn b2 - b4, Lion a5 - a8 9. Pawn b4 - b5, Knight c6 - e7 10. Lion a1 - a3, Knight e7 - g6 leaving White with a positional advantage.
<p>Something went very wrong and now Black is sacrificing pieces to avoid checkmate. I can take credit for the opening moves, as well as the decision to capture Black's Knight on move 13, instead of the more valuable Bishop. But Zillions is giving a massive boost to my tactical strength. I am in danger of turning into a trained monkey, pushing buttons on the computer and staring at the blinking lights with no comprehension.
wrote on Enter the normal chess move without the conversion, and the conversion will be automatic. (that is, simply d5-f4 or d5-f6, but not d5-f4; p-e5 or d5-f6; p-e5)
wrote on can i jump and take-over the pawn at e5? it says i 'can't change the type of that piece'
wrote on To anyone who may be watching this, here's what's going on...
The game is Lions and Unicorns Chess, a new game from David Paulowich. It
puts Lions and Unicorns (from Unicorn Great Chess) onto the 80-square
board. The King castles with the Rooks by sliding two squares either way.
The pawns promote to Unicorn, Queen, or Chancellor only.
In this game, David Paulowich is playing White, but consulting with
Zillions of Games as he sees fit, but primarily as a blunder detector.
Although I am controlling the Black pieces, the moves will all be
determined (exclusively) by ChessV, set to a fixed I-Depth of 9.
wrote on Carlos, good game. Thanks.
wrote on well played tony. i am sure you would have won anyway.
wrote on You're right. I just confirmed it. You ran out of time.
wrote on i think i must have timed out. life has been too busy lately.
wrote on What happened here? Did Carlos resign without mentioning it? No one is in check, much less checkmate.
wrote on Congratulations, Michael, you have won. Your last move was checkmate, not merely check. You had a mate-in-one on your last turn and missed it, and then Mark had the opportunity to prevent mate on this turn by taking your Bishop with his Rook, but he neglected to. Perhaps you both forgot some of the rules that make Eurasian Chess different from regular Chess. The King cannot cross the river, and Kings may not face each other across an open line. Since the King is on the edge of the river, it cannot move forward in any direction, and since your King commands the file on one side of Mark's King, it cannot move to that file.
wrote on And Rule 4 in this version is cut back to:
<p>'If the piece put into the pocket was removed from its owner's eighth rank, then it promotes to the next higher value class. The exact piece promoted to is chosen immediately.'
wrote on David Paulowich writes: Michael Nelson has graciously agreed to playtest some new rules I suggested for Pocket Mutation Chess.
<p>NEW CLASS 4: Short Queen (piece Y) - moves up to four squares as a Bishop or Rook. Midway between Rook and Queen in normal chess, it may be a very strong 'drop piece'.
<p>[NEW RULE 2] If a player's pocket is empty, then the player may remove any of his pieces (except for a king, pawn, or amazonrider) from any square on the edge of the board (28 possible) and put it in his pocket as a move. White may not use the pocket on the first move.
<p>[NEW RULE 5] If the player has a piece in his pocket, then he may drop that piece on any empty square not on the edge of the board (36 possible) as his move.
<p>[NEW RULE 7] En passant and initial double step rules for pawns apply as usual. Pawn promotion (still mandatory and immediate) is limited to a Class 2 piece. But Rule 4 allows that new piece to 'pocket promote' to a Class 3 piece on the very next move.
wrote on Carlos, I should be back in about 10 days. Have a nice week (or two).
wrote on Charles: I saw this game a few weeks ago. If you don't have an opponent, I am willing to take the Black pieces. --- David Paulowich (still planning to post a proper rules page for UGChess).
wrote on Speaking of underpromotion with respect Mainzer Schach, I was recently worried about an underpromotion in this game. After Move 42, White goes R c2-d2 because of Black Pawn's threat to promote at d1 to Knight, immediately giving check; so one side or other may keep checking. [Also note difference spelling Kibitz, versus Kibbutz?]
wrote on It seems move 19. W a0-x1 is illegal, because the outer ring is accessible only in order to capture.
wrote on This game in progress appears as a game of the First Courier Tournament, and it is not, if I
wrote on After 36. Pawn j2 - j4 Black could try 36... Unicorn c8 - a4 check Running Zillions at 3 min. on a 533 MHz machine gives: 37. King d1 - c1, Unicorn a4 - c6 38. Queen j1 - j2 check, King c9 - c10 39. Queen j2 - j3 check, King c10 - b10 40. Unicorn f9 - c3, Rook i10 - f10 41. Rook e1 - e5, Rook e10 - e8
wrote on Just a note to let you know that I have posted 'Unicorn Great Chess: Inventor's Comments' on the Unicorn Chess webpage and offered some guesses as to the piece values: Pawn 100, Knight 300, Bishop 350, Lion 450, Rook 550, Chancellor 900, Queen 1000, Unicorn 1000. Currently I am busy working on changing the rules file 'alf-capablancaschess.zrf' into 'alf-lions_and_unicorns.zrf'. That's right, this is a draft set of rules placing Chancellors, Lions, and Unicorns on an 80 square board. This time around I am going to prepare a brand new web page before the ZRF files and PBM presets go up on the internet.
wrote on <p>Yes, it was great fun to play a game in a couple of days! Of course, I'm an unemployed part-time student at the moment, so I have lots of time on my hands. I suspect that there would be less people signing up for the Game Courier tournament if it had a much stricter time-limit, even if it was only one game at a time. Real-life may just be too chaotic ... I do wish I had known about <a href='http://www.chessvariants.com'>chessvariants.com</a> in time to get in on that tournament.</p>
<p>I think your analysis of this game is right on the money... I got the jump on you because you were a little switch-happy in the early game. Actually, when I first programmed ChessV for this game, I kept starting games, and it just wasn't switching at all, so I kept aborting the game early, thinking that the program was broken. Turns out, ChessV was not broken at all; it just doen't see any advantage in switching in the early-game. By the end-game, though, switching is very deadly, and allows for much greater pawn-promotion potential.</p>
wrote on This game is played fast for Courier with all 70 moves in a few days. But for 43 ...Rd7-d4, Black stays ahead to win, after White makes too many Swap moves 21-37, without enough piece development. On M43, White almost goes R c2-c8, which would lead to 43 ...Q b5-d5, 44 P h4-h5, and probably not enough to sustain checks against Black, so the d-pawn promotes that way. At Moves 65 on, Black Bishop can't quite stay interposed safely, even with Swapping, to promote the (next to last)Pawn. I think a better way for tournaments, is for games to complete in a day or two, like this one.
wrote on In this game, Black Queen was captured and then exchanged by a White Bishop in move 12, a Black blunder ; Nevertheless, White position was not good in around move 15, and White have had to progresively return some of the material advantage, looking for improve his position, and this strategy was successful, when the material was almost nivelated, White position was clearly superior than Black position, and the technics for the definitive win were relatively easy. This is a very positional game, and the best way for a win is consolidating a good position, material is less important than in FIDE-Chess. Trying to preserve a material advantage can be a strategic error if the position is inferior to the other player. Regardless the initial material advantage, it was not easy a win, Fergus is a very strong player!.
wrote on For the record, Black's move 37... k g9-e9 is illegal.
wrote on antoine, i am away for 9/10 days. i need about that long to figure out my next move anyway. have a good week.
wrote on oh, no problem! This is my first CWDA game (against a human at least), and
I'm having a hard time visualizing things myself ...
wrote on my mistake f-bakking does not move as rook
wrote on did not notice check
wrote on Even Shogi and Xiangqi have more long-range piece-types than Makruk. Thai Chess, as called, has only Rook capable of traversing board in one move. All four Rooks remain, so it is possible for a mistake here, but White outnumbers Black-Red 9 to 6 in remaining units after Move 33.
wrote on Please note changes in the Charge and Rapid Mobilization special rules. No more changes will be made.
wrote on Hi, Peter and Charles: I'm glad to see you're back at it, and I'll hold to my promise of a free set of pieces to each of you on completion, a board to the winner. I'd be interested in your opinions, ideas, and comments when you're done. Thanks, James Spratt
wrote on The slow pieces with a lot of latitude, combined with a few longer-moving pieces, on a large board, makes for a very interesting, positional game.
wrote on It says no sense playing unless joining the club, will look into it...
wrote on cheers antoine
wrote on Yes, there was a bug in the preset. It has been corrected.
wrote on Charles, Peter: I took the liberty of revising your log to use the new Spratt piece set. I did this because with recent updates the minirules no longer refered to the Alfaerie piece set and there was no longer any reference to the old images. I hope this is not too much of an inconvenience. Note also that you can individually change from the black and white set to a color set by selecting from the available Imperial Chess set options. If there are any errors or problems, please let me know.
wrote on This game was played in a very conservative way. Black obtained a very little material advantage, not enough for a decision without taking risks, and without clarity about how to progress safely. White and Black final positions on 19th. were very solid, and DRAW was accorded, but the game is actually being continued using other LOG. Outside the Tournament, the game is now much more open and risky, all can happen now, but the change of strategy is pure fun!. Let
wrote on i think there is a bug in the game. the preset thinks i am in check and won't let me make any moves. i'm pretty sure i'm not in check.
wrote on Yeah, the non-combatant women produce a new person, and don't die in the process; it'd be neat to see one promote TWICE, wouldn't it? Girls have their long, arduous journeys, too. I've tried to stick close to reality with the various behaviors of different pieces.
wrote on Hi, Peter! You're very welcome, and I'll be glad to hear your critique. Tony and I have another game going with new icons; I feel like the baby's walking, and thanks again to you and Mr. Snider; I'm watching. James
wrote on The board looks great! This is quite fun, enhanced by the figures, the colors and the map-board!
wrote on The turning point this game: Moves 13... and 14... 13 ...Black Bishop f8-c5 is reasonable, but next move, by sacrifice of Knight at e4 to open line for Queen, not quite enough material Kingside against Berolina pawns, good defenders--in view of 16 White N to f6, Check. If 16 ...QxN,17 g2-h3 ends threat, and White will soon recover the Pawn and positionally stand to gain another or even a piece.
wrote on Well played on both sides! Black's 13th move is the key--mutating the
Queen and allowing the fork but creating the devastating counterattack.
The most brilliant Pocket Mutation move I've seen.
If Black doesn't find this move, or there is any error in his followup,
White is playing more than well enough to win--he will promote the
Nightrider and continue to extend his advantage.
Congratutulations to Fergus for a fine win and to Thomas for a excellently
played effort that could have easily gone the other way.
wrote on The piece mix is interesting. I like the mix of different range pieces. The promotion rule is neat, you actually add a new piece when you promote. The promoting, non-capturing pieces are very innovative.
wrote on Dear Mr. Sprat,
I would like to thank you for your generosity ( in giving a set of
imperial pieces to myself & Mr. Snider ). I will contact you to also give
an overall on your game. So far, I'm curious on how my strategy will play
out.
Sincerely Pete Leyva
wrote on I played this game wide open, disregarding my own advice about using the
pocket sparingly. If the attack hadn't come off, I would have been in a
disadvantaged position and might well have lost. Ben already had gained a
small material advantage and a failed attack would have given him the
opportunity to gain more.
You will probably never see an AmazonRider in Pocket Mutation, but in
games with a more conservative opening, a wider variety of pieces will
appear. Above Queen strength pieces are not common but do make appearances
from time to time. The good variety of Queen value pieces often come into
play in the later middlegame, but the real meat of Pcoket Mutation's
expanded piece set are the SuperBishop, NightRider, SuperRook, and
Cardinal.
Sometimes a timely mutation of a Knight into a Bishop or vice versa or the
promotion of Bishop to Rook is the key to a victory. This game has
tremendous variety.
wrote on Dear Mr. Peter Leyva and Mr. Charles Snider: Congratulations and thank you for being the first to play Imperial Chess online! Upon completion of this game to win/lose, I will give each of you a set of the small playing pieces, and to the winner I will give a matching board. Please contact me at www.sprattart.com, upon completion of the game. Again, thank you. James Killian Spratt, m.sc.
wrote on There was a bug in the 'onboard' function of the polish notation calculator. It is now fixed, and you can promote your Pawn.
wrote on i'm confused. i can't seem to promote my pawn. i have tried 'd10-;Q-d11' and 'd10-d11;Q-d11'. i get the messages 'you can't change this type of piece' or 'you can only promote on the last rank'. have i got the notation wrong? have i got the move wrong?
wrote on Thanks for the game, Carlos. Your Cavalier pawns well played til move 30 or so. Such Pawns here are up against four piece types worth more than say Rook (or N-rider equals R). Cavalier Chess seems well-designed game, requiring some threading the needle.
wrote on Fergus Duniho fixed the castling bug.
wrote on Thomas, thanks. I enjoyed the game. Well played. Best to you in the rest of the tournament! -- Tony.
wrote on There seems to be a bug in the Chess rules enforcement for Black castling, either kingside or queenside. I have reported it to Fergus Duniho. White castling seems to be ok.
wrote on Move 31 does not check WKing because f3 blocks g3 orthogonally.
wrote on Well done, Tony, and thanks for the game. I felt like I had an
ever-so-slight advantage early in the game, but that shows what I know
about shogi. As is so easy to do in games with drops, I left myself
without adequate defenses and paid the price.
Good luck in the rest of the tourney.
wrote on I agree with the last interpretetion, it should be possible to move pieces from one board to block a check on the other board. But a king should not be able to escape a check by moving into check on the other board or simply moving into another checked square on the same board to escape to the other board.
wrote on I previously entered an erroneous comment, and there is no facility for deleting kibbitizing comments.
wrote on I have now fixed the code to enforce the rules correctly.
wrote on cheers fergus.
wrote on Okay, I found a quotation from Parton that answers my question:
'When a player wishes to interpose a piece between his King checked and
the enemy checking, he may forget that his pieces on the same board as his
Kings are useless for such a purpose. For this intervention he must find
a piece on the other board able to move there legally and then transfer to
a position between the King and the checking enemy.'
This quotation implies the possibility of blocking a check by moving a
piece on the other board. Therefore, it should not count that the King is
temporarily left in check before the piece transfers. However, Parton does
point out that a King may not move to a space it is in check on, even when
the transfer would take it out of check. The same principle would apply to
moves that reveal checks on one's King. But these can be accounted for by
the usual checking for check at the end of the move, since the King would
not have moved. Therefore, it seems that checking for check before the
completion of a move is needed only when a player moves his King. So I
will fix the Alice Chess code to enforce this interpretation of the rules.
wrote on Has this game ended in checkmate at move 7? Or can White reply with 'R B1-B4'? As the rules have been encoded into Game Courier, there are no legal moves left for White. There seems to be an ambiguity in the rules, and I'm not sure how to resolve it. The rule in question says 'A move must be legal on the board it is played.' At present, Game Courier checks whether the King is in check before the completion of the transfer of a piece from one board to another, and if the King is in check then, it recognizes the move as illegal. So, when the Rook moves from B1 to B4, the King is still in check from the Bishop before the transfer to b4, and Game Courier interprets the move as illegal. But is that correct? One interpretation of the rule is that it requires a move to be legal only within a certain domain, namely on the board on which the move is made. In that case, a piece would have to begin its move on the same board as the King for it to matter whether the King is left in check before the completion of the move. Would that be the correct way to interpret the rule? Has this sort of situation ever come up before in discussions of Alice Chess? Has Parton ever addressed this ambiguity in the rules? Are there any recorded sample games that clear up the ambiguity one way or the other?
wrote on Excellent game, Antoine, you played really well this Hexetera game test(although in the Symmetron!44 test you did a few weak moves, including the fatal move of your Reducer to the launching square, allowing to me a strong attack including the final sacrifices taking advantage of the vulnerability of your King). In Hexetera, my weak Pawn in rank 'a' was decisive, Antoine attacked it with notorious precision until it was captured. Move 31 of Antoine seemed doubtly, because he was 'forced' (well, more or less) to sacrifice a Rook by a Flyer-Elephant a few moves after, but the advanced promotable Pawn was the difference, and the sequence of moves, including the sacrifice, were definitely very good, as I could analyze after the game. I were forced to resign in move 42 by the imposibility of avoid the Pawn promotion.
wrote on I missed your earlier comment about the Berlolinas! :) I never played a variant that used them until I wrote SW44. Weird, aren't they?
wrote on We are running a Test game of Symmetron!44, and it is very interesting.
Black Team improved a lot his position after a doubtly opening, White
liberated his Launching Square and Black decided other strategy,
mantaining the Knight in hand and expecting an open game. In move 23 Black
seems to have a very good position after the sacrifice of a Pawn.
Once finished, I expect a Preset for this game, although I would prefer
that the squares of the fortresses be identified using other colors, maybe
lighter.
wrote on Fergus, good game.
wrote on I guess I don't read Kibbitz comments as often as I read other comments. So I didn't see Roberto's question until now. I am reluctant to program any automatic deletion of logs. People sometimes do resume games after extended breaks. For example, Erez Schatz recently resumed some games with me after being without an internet connection for months. For now, I leave it to the discretion of individual players to delete logs of abandoned games.
wrote on I don
wrote on Move 26 (g1-a7; d4-) for White is illegal. Your King is left in Check (Black Coordinator can take the King now)
wrote on sorry... now i've forgotten to switch boards too!
wrote on I am enjoying this game as spectator!... Comments later, after end.
wrote on Michael, you are right! Thanks for pointing this out. The issue is moot, since I lost anyway....
wrote on It seems that neither player has noticed that Black's 22nd move was illegal.
wrote on It is possible that your ivitation is going to be accepted by someone, regardless of the exigent time controls you have defined. If you modify the time controls, I can accept your invitation. I
wrote on I e-mailed Eric asking whether he wished to continue the game of Tamerspiel I have ongoing with him. He replied that he did, but must postpone play for the time being. I decided to retain my log to keep the game active. In another game, I also e-mailed my opponent with a similar question after a couple of months of inactivity, but got no reply, so I deleted the log.
wrote on Fergus, can you answer the question?. One month?, Two?. The system must be adapted to delete abandoned games, but at first it is necessary a definition of what means 'abandoned', in time terms.
wrote on To anybody who is listening:
What is an appropriate amount of time to wait before deleting an
(apparently) abandoned game?
wrote on A Pincer-Pawn can capture several pieces (up to three, in some cases) in one movement, if the position allows that.
wrote on i just want to clarify a rule i'm a little unsure of. i think i misunderstood the rule prior to ben's last move. a pincer pawn can only capture one piece at a time? (in one direction)
wrote on In a game end of 'one must die', Black was checkmated. Excellent game, Tony could win, but King
wrote on Hello! Welcome to the tournament. Here's to an interesting game.
wrote on Not yet. I am in the process of writing up a longer page for the CVP.
Thanks for offering though. :-)
wrote on Michael, do you want this game posted in the CVP?
wrote on -
wrote on -
wrote on Black and White have discarded repetitions, and are playing to win. The end turned complex, but tension has augmented. All can happen, and I can
wrote on Carlos Carlos, the easiest way is that your opponent make the correction, it is your opponent
wrote on what a way to begin... i have (obviously) moved the wrong piece and can't figure out how to take back the move. help...
wrote on Correction: If Black plays weak, White can win, and viceversa. Weak may mean a move that is not very close, in quality, to the best one...
wrote on This game end is not trivial!. Analyze it!. Black Withdrawer is trying to take the White
wrote on Infarctive end. Black wins in two, White has some threats trying to avoid a lose...Complex defense!, I
wrote on White conducted a risky game mantaining advantage until move 35, some beautiful and plastic tactics were seen, did for both bands. After that, White played two weak moves and Black improved his position with some very good moves, and now the game is in a dramatic end, Black has a positional advantage that looks impressive, but White mantains a little material advantage and it appears that White can defend the positionn, with real chances for both bands. Nice game end!.
wrote on Observe this end-game! Very dramatic. Victory or defeat hangs by a thread for both sides.
wrote on According to <A
href='http://www.loktev.h1.ru/hexachess/rules.php'>this page</A> in Russian, (the site's pages featuring graphics are linked to in the Comments section of the CV page),
<br>'Piece value at Hexagonal Chess is more or less so: the Bishop is equivalent to three Pawns, the Knight to four, the Rook to eight and the Queen to sixteen. Position and advancement of the game play an important part. Thus, at the beginning of the game a Bishop is nearly worth a Knight, but near the end the importance of the Knight grows sensibly. As in regular Chess, the Queen and the Rook are called major pieces and the Knight and the Bishop minor, and the exchange of a minor piece for a Rook appears as the gain of 'quality'. Out of analogy the exchange of a Bishop for a Knight can be called the gain of 'the small quality'.'
wrote on Good game!
wrote on Excellent game until move 45. Black have had a slight advantage from the beginnings to 45th; After that, some not very strong Black moves allowed White to take an advantage that had the aspect of decisive, but the end was not easy for White, Black has found a way to draw by repetition, taking advantage of the alone White King. Posterior analysis showed that White had a winner position in the decisive move 49, although the correct move was not easy to see. Antoine found another sequence of winner moves after 49th. The ends in this game are not so easy to play. We have noted that we are still somewhat novices playing the interesting Hexetera ends. But I
wrote on As pointed out by Roberto in a further mail (and by Zillions), 49. R d4xd5
(GC notation) is indeed a win.
R d4-d5+ c6xd5
FE b7xc7(!!?) G d6xc7
R f5-e5+ K e7-c8
R e5xd5 (threatening self-capture) K c8-e7
R d5-e5+ K e7-c8
R e5-e6+ K c8-b8
R e6xb6+
49. Rf5-g5+ also wins.
wrote on I think that calling Hexes Chess a 'small' hexagonal chess variant is a mischaracterization. I believe it is an optimally sized hexagonal chess game, facillitating fast-paced, high-conflict play. It may be small compared to the hexagonal variants with 91 hexagons, but I think those variants are over-sized and ineffeicient. Hexes Chess, with its rotational symmetry accommodates a complete set of pieces on 54 hexagons. The beauty of a hexagonal format is precisely that it does more with less. I mean no disrespect to Glinski, McCooey, and others that have designed large hexagonal chess games, but this point seems to have been missed by them.
wrote on The Black moves 40 to 43 were not the best, now White has clear advantage after the Pawn promotion. The only move available for Black was a cannibal capture of its own Rook. But it was not easy a continuation in move 40 for Black. After the end of the game,
wrote on This titanic combat is entering in decisive phases. The game has been played really well by both bands. The initial slight advantage of Black dissapeared, and now both teams have possibilities. Black and White are playing with great force, attempting to make interesting sacrifices of pieces, but in every case the other team did the correct move to avoid the danger when it was needed. This is the best test of Hexetera I have played. I
wrote on I am making a traditional Pawn response here, but a response with a Knight move also could have been effective.
wrote on No gambit, no trap. I just made a careless move.
wrote on White seems to be trying some kind of gambit, or I may just be falling into a trap!
wrote on Though it uses 54 hexagons, it feels remarkably spacious.
wrote on Observe this game of Hexes Chess now starting. Its an interesting small variation of Glinski's Chess with added Pawn mobility. Nice!
wrote on The game in progress is quite interesting. White is playing without the Reducer, making any attempt to attack black forces near hopeless. In compensation, White has some material, measured in the major pieces power. White has tried to construct a defensive structure preserving its Grand-Horses, in this way Black attack is not easy, regardless his clearly better position. The Reducer can
wrote on Achernar, named for the 9th brightest star just ahead of Betelgeuse in
Orion, is actually Orthodox Chess with two new pieces.[Just as Carrera's,
Bird's, Capablanca, Wildebeest, Omega etc. each having own two new pieces]
Here Overtaker leaps to capture like Checkers, and Reducer cuts adjacent
pieces' powers to one square. Knight has added one-sq orthogonal, and
Bishop also but not to capture. Further added power to move horiz.
Rookwise without capture to O, B, P. Further added power to move to square
in (same-coloured) file three away to O, N, B, R. Promotion of (already
enhanced) P(=Soldier) to Grand Soldier still leaves it only equal to O,
slightly the weakest piece.
In present game, White admits the loss of Reducer in exchange makes any
attack difficult at best.
wrote on Analysis of three key moves: White's 13 (Use viewer) Pawn h2-g3 allows the Black Pawns' double threat of Advancer and Long Leaper next move, taking Advancer. Then Black loses this clear advantage by not taking three Pawns at once with 27 ...L h3-x3. There is no need to move other LL instead. [B & W moves recorded reversed now after #24] White's good move 34 L -g4, threatening both King and Immobilizer, leads to capture of Swapper next turn. At this point, two pieces up for White is overcome only by positional game in that White King is exposed. It takes fifteen moves to 50 to assure Black's win. Up til then White may still promote P to Immobilizer and unclear finish.
wrote on Antoine and me have decided analyze this variant of Viking Chess. 7 files looks too short, in the 12x7 board, it appears to be a great advantage for White in many instances, that can be mantained unless there are big errors in White
wrote on Observe this opening. This game has some elements of Go. The throwing of stones is positional and strategic. The game play has a pleasing aesthetic too.
wrote on I'm afraid White's move 24 is illegal, as only capturing moves may end
on the ring squares, and then only if necessary for the capture.
wrote on Observe Roberto's last move. He makes a very interesting discover check by a Pawn with his Coordinator.
wrote on I fixed the bug that was making this game look screwy.
wrote on As I was viewing this game, I was noticing that captured pieces along the sides were getting really screwed up. They would disappear, reappear, and have wrong orientations. I'm trying to debug this, but I'm not yet sure what's causing it. Let me ask Charles and lazyking the same question, and it will help my debugging if you will both answer. When you have been playing the game, have you noticed the same thing I have just described? And of anyone else reading this, have you noticed anything similar in other games, whether by viewing or playing them?
wrote on After Move 6, White may retake with the z-pawn, since Black has tactically overplayed that side. That might lead to early exchange of Cannons but keep other pawn controlling Teleporter square, for which no Knight is now available. Thus White Bishop(and Witch) could soon move along long diagonal, not just control them. The cost of using z-pawn is likely loss of Cannon's versatility early and Black's encroachment that side. Obviously equally to be weighed are capture with Rook or b-pawn. Neither side has played a Jack in hand early for protection of King.
wrote on Excellent game of Wizard's War. The game became simplified to Rook-Kings and 2 Rooks each. The value of time in this game was highlighted at the end as critical material on the Arena was developed for a final set of trades. The threat of the holding pieces in hand was more present than actually used. The value of being able to drop a piece in hand and thereby gaining in development made this option a disinsentive to capturing in the Enchanted Squares. Great game.
wrote on My last moves were made without comfort, I were looking for a potential
attack of your immobilizer and Swapper agaisnt my King, it obligated to me
to mantain the Withdrawer out of game, as a barrier near my King. The
promotion of a Pawn, although I have seen it as almost sure, was not made
in the best way, as you pointed out, I have had to promote my Cannon Pawn
to Immobilizer, other promotion was considered near impossible, your King
could take any other promoted piece. My plan was trying to promote in the
left-most ranks, but you played well enough and your immobilizer made the
work when needed. Yes, If I don
wrote on Thanks for the game, Roberto. Your move 31, where Swapper and Long Leaper vanish by mutual destruction, took me by surprise. It wasn't exactly ' forced,' I saw S -d8 by the King, having forgotten this special rule. That LL was my last real attacking piece. If you had not already let Pawn take Advancer, as you pointed out, the material advantage is too much for Black to overcome. Thus each side's one major error keeps the material equal for most part. Fortunately for me, as you also suggest, Black's Immobilizer is used to keep advantage and gradually 'attrit.' I also suspect that it may not have occurred to you for a few moves to maneuvre Pawns for Immobilizer, whereas any other promotion is taken by King.
wrote on Interesting game!. Other comments when finished.
wrote on Nice game of Antoine and Peter. The end was beautiful!. Peter have had a
very good game in the first 25 moves, but Antoine was nivelating
progressively the positions. Peter
wrote on Critical indeed. Tony is threatening to win by clearing the arena. His use of his superior number of pieces to keep my two Amazons out of the arena is quite instructive. If I can simplfy the position down to one Amazon for me in addition to Rook-Wizards and Rooks for both sides, I can probably win. If I can't, Tony will likely have a winning head start in the coming 'Rook War'.
wrote on The game is now critical!
wrote on After 117 moves, this test game is finally over. It reminds me of that dumb sport that sometimes postpones some of the TV shows I watch because it takes so long to end a game. Well, this is what beta versions are for. I will be fixing some of the problems with this game in the next version. Overall, it is a fun game, and it's a lot more interesting game to play against yourself than other Chess variants are. By not looking at your new cards until your next turn, which is what I did, you are able to play against yourself without full knowledge of what cards are in your opponent's hand.
wrote on I'll keep those ideas in mind, but for the next version, I will be making the spells most useful for escaping checkmate more expensive. These seem to be possession and teleportation.
wrote on Perhaps the problem is that spells may not be used to achive checkmate, but
may be used to escape checkmate. Two alternatives to playtest:
1. Checkmate may be given by spells.
2. Spells may not be used to escape checkmate. (Spells may be used to
escape a check which could have been escaped by a normal move.)
wrote on It seems a bit too easy to defend in this game. Both players have escaped near checkmate many times. White keeps escaping by moving to spaces he has cards for, so that he can escape again when he needs to, hopefully getting enough time to build some forces. It's a dynamic game, but maybe too dynamic. I should probably make it harder to defend.
wrote on You're right, Michael. Pawn promotion doesn't induce flipping.
wrote on No, I didn't forget that rule, actually.
wrote on It seems that White
wrote on Very good game you two have going.
A rules point you should clarify before it becomes applicable: does
promoting a pawn induce flipping? I would say no, as the promotion is a
Pawn move, not a move of the resultant polypiece.
wrote on The cards look great! This certainly adds an interesting dimension to both Chess and Game Courier.
wrote on This is the first completed test game of the beta version of my new game, Magic Chess. As you can see if you're looking at it, it is a Chess game that makes use of cards. After I finish my other test game with David Howe, I will upload the revised rules and add some new cards. Once new cards are added, it will alter the order of shuffled cards, and you will no longer be able to view this game unless I archive it somehow. In the meantime, have a look at this game. Now that it's over, you can see what cards each side has. During the course of an ongoing game, Game Courier hides cards from public view, but it lets you see all cards once a game is over.
wrote on Black's third move was illegal. You can't move your opponent's pieces, the Knight does not leap like that, and it isn't legal to put yourself in check. I expect you meant to move your own Knight at b8. The User's Guide explains how to take back moves.
wrote on Okay I've created an account here as well - not the most straight forward
of websites :(
I don't know how I ended up at 'itsyourturn'.
wrote on White's eleventh move is illegal. A Bishop promotes to a Dragon Horse, not to a Dragon King.
wrote on White's tenth move is incomplete and should be taken back and repeated.
Read the User's Guide for details on how to do this. Whenever you capture
a piece, you should put it in hand. That's what the areas on the sides of
the board are for. White's tenth move should have looked something like
this:
B 2b-7g; N-Ca // Check!
wrote on This is a copy of an ongoing e-mail game with Larry L. Smith. My early attack with Attack Boards may or may not be a good idea. This is a flanking game and control of the Attack Boards is crucial. Movement between the main boards is only possible through the Attack Boards. Control of the Neutral board may be of some value. We'll see! The 3-D configuration is a real mind-bender, but the movement rules are clear and classical.
wrote on Okay// that works // thanks
wrote on When you write an inline comment in the Moves field, you should precede it with two slashes, //, not with a semicolon. The only reason that x-pawn did nothing is because pawn is not the name of any location on the board. If you had used a board location, you would have put a piece on the board.
wrote on I made a bad mistake on move 8, but might well have escaped with a draw
against a lesser opponent.
Please observe Antoine's excellent technique in bringing the win home. I
found the wall of pawns around his Queen most annoying:he was to well
protected against a Knight drop that might have allowed me some
counterplay. His aggressive attacks on the back rank looking for
promotions kept my Queen pinned down defending it--this is really a
Rook's job.
An excellent exploitation of superior matierial and mobility for an
irresistable breakthrough. Well played indeed!
wrote on I can guess what polyfacetic means from its roots, but it doesn't appear in the dictionary. The closest English word would be multifaceted.
wrote on That interaction is why I tend to be reluctent to make captures that lead
into a forced capture the following turn, since it gives your opponent
essentially a free move. When that following capture itself ends up on
the edge, it's just too risky for me. The result at that point is a bit
like playing Progressive Chess, since your opponent gets several free
moves.
<p>I'd please to play you again at any time, Tony.
wrote on A very interesting game. Move 15 is a forced capture of a Pawn by the Bishop on the border *instead* of the King evading the attacking Queen! The King capture condition along with the obligatory border capture rule made Peter's combination possible. Very nice! (I'll take another rematch sometime, Peter!)
wrote on Thanks, Antoine, you have found an illegal move in the game, I have not
seen that after you pointed out the mistake.
Fergus, I
wrote on Should there perhaps be an option for the players of a particular game to disable kibbitzing if they don't want their game kibbitzed? If this exists already, I apologize for missing it.
wrote on I like Fergus' thinking on this issue.
wrote on I think that pointing out illegal moves is something kibbitzers should
always be allowed to do. After all, illegal moves are illegal, and Game
Courier does not have the ability to enforce legal moves, but it does have
the ability to take back any previous move.
What I think Kibbitzers should avoid unless especially invited to is to
offer suggestions about what moves players should make.
Between these two extremes, the area is a bit more grey. Use common sense.
The general rule would be that it's okay to act like a referee or umpire,
but it's usually not okay to act like a coach. Once a game is over, it
will then be okay to analyze the game and offer comments on what players
should have done.
wrote on Thanks for pointing out the illegal move. I went back and made a new move.
wrote on I would say that kibbitzers should be free to make relevant comments.
wrote on The final mating combination is Pocket Mutation at its finest. Got to love
the discovered checkmate. A fine illustration of the awesome power of the
Nightrider in the opning/early middlegame.
Antoine and Peter have done much to advance opening theory for Pocket
Mutation. I have come to appreciate how terrifying a Rook on its intial
square is--the Nightrider mutation is always lurking in the background.
wrote on Antoine is correct. Black's 16 move is illegal, as piece creation is not
optional in Wizard's War. Sorry about that, Tony (and your were asking me
about letting you know if you made an illegal move!)
As to whether kibbitzers should comment on illegal moves, I think we
should develop some consensus on this as soon as possible. I can see both
sides of this, but tend towrds being in favor of it--better to waste three
moves than a whole game.
Over the board chess is not a valid analogy, as kibbitzers there are
barred from any comment about anything.
wrote on Maybe it doesn't help after the battle, but move 24 is illegal, since the Knight is not on a square orthogonally adjacent to another square. (Of course I didn't see it myself, I replayed the moves on Zillions to study Voidrider Chess and I couldn't enter the move.)
wrote on Should kibitzers comment on possible illegal moves, or just let the game stand?
wrote on What a game are you playing, boys!. I can
wrote on After the wrong drop of the Knight in move 27, I opted for a very risky line, opening the game with the next pawn move. The move 28 that Fergus made was a gem, a deep sacrifice that neither Fergus nor me evaluated well, but it was a really good move, enough to trap my King in a checkmate net ten moves after. In move 26 I could augment the pressure over the left ranks, perhaps advancing my leftmost pawns with the help of other of my pieces, looking the bad positioned enemy bishop. My move 27 allowed this bishop to go in action, in a very agressive attack position. Fergus made a good job and finished the game with mastery, doing the best move in each turn to finish the game. I lost, but I enjoyed the game. Shogi is a monumental game, it is not justice that this great game is not widely played in West. By the way, Bravo, Fergus!. Excellent game. In the future, I am going to challenge you again, Shogi or a Mortal variant, let
wrote on In retrospect, my move 28 was really a good one. It opened up a very strong line of attack on the enemy King, and although it cost me a Gold General and a Rook, it allowed me to quickly scoop up a Silver General and another Gold General, and the Bishop I got for the Rook also helped out very much in my attack on the King.
wrote on Nice game guys -- I've been enjoying this game. Fergus' experience at
playing shogi shows, but I think Andreas might have a good counter-attack
coming!
Anyway, this comment is part of the new Kibbitzing system for the PBM Game
Courier. It's not fully completed yet, but it should be usable by the
players.