Comments by Andy Thomas

a friend of mine had one of these sets... it was called 'battle chess' or
somesuch... for all intents and purposes, it was the same as one pictured
here... with 2 players, you could play 'corners' where each player had
two neighboring colors, or you could play 'criss cross' where each
player controlled two colors opposite one another... you could also play
with 4 players, or with 3 players... there are a lot of possible
variations... once we had 3 players and made the 4th color operable by all
3 of us... we took turns making the 4th army's moves... :)

in any event, like any other variant, this sort of game can sharpen your
wits for FIDE chess by exercising your brain 'outside of the box'... and
perhaps that's at least one of the reasons we play, 'chess variants'...

all in all, i highly recommend 'taurus chess'...

i would think that the five tigers should be able to move sideways from the
beginning... how are they supposed to get across the river otherwise?...
can't blue/black just kind of hover around on the far banks, re-arranging
his pieces and picking the tigers off as they come across?... wouldn't it
be better to let the tigers move sideways from the start?

also, if i understand correctly, the diagram here does indeed show a
checkmate, because even if the king's left advisor goes in front of the
king, the pawn, with it's 2-point movement would simply 'turn the
corner' and 'boom'... king taken... that ability to move 1 sideways and
one forward (or vice versa)... seems fairly powerful for trapping the
black/blue king in the palace....

'T=Tank: Moves one space like a king. It can capture as a queen, but
without moving (rifle capture). Can't capture a piece right next to it.
It can push pieces of either colors in a row, column, diagonal. Pieces
pushed off the board are put onto your bench.'

ok... i understand how it captures, but how does the 'push' work
exactly?

'Pieces on your bench cannot be dropped like shogi, they can only be
placed by moving a pawn past the end of the board. '

so i move a pawn off of the back of the board... where is a piece from the
bench then placed?... at the last sqaure that the now-exited pawn had
occupied?

in AIGO, perhaps the knights' pawns should be dispensed with altogether.
in my opinion this would give better 'synergy' between the combined FIDE
and xiang qi varieties of chess. then there would be no rule about whether
those pawns could move 2 initially, because the knights' pawns wouldn't
exist; and each side would have 16 pieces, as each side does in both FIDE
and xiang qi. plus, the cannons would then be able to attack the
opponent's knights, as it is in xiang qi. currently, AIGO with the
cannons inserted at n2 and knights pawns starting at 3, gives the game a
'cramped' look on the 8x8 board.

thanks for the review christine... i'm happy you find this variant as
interesting as i do... as you know, i had been fiddling with larry's
superlative zillions implementation of american chess, in order to try and
create, 'american blitz chess'... what with 2 boards side by side (22x9)
and upwards of 50 pieces per side!... there were 2 and 3 moves per side in
each turn... well, 'american blitz chess' is still kind of a dream... but
in the meantime i stumbled across the 'marseilles' chess variant whereby
with a FIDE setup the players would get two moves apiece per turn, the
latest version having a sequence of 'white black black white'
('marseilles balanced, invented in 1992')... so i thought i would try
this with standard american chess as a way of creating a restrained
(one-board) version of 'american blitz chess'

anyway, if anyone is playing american chess, if you add this code to the
end of the .zrf file:

(variant
	(title 'American Chess - Marseilles')
	(turn-order Blue Red Red Blue)
)

then you can play this thrilling ('marseilles') variant 'through'
american chess... trust me... this is what american chess was meant to
be!... even more pressure packed than before!... maybe it's the perfect
chess variant!... lol... :) ... well at least from a certain artistic and
emotional standpoint... ;)

--He also suggested that stronger pieces might make a better game if placed
on a larger board. 
-

that's a good obervation coming from a 6-year old...

have you told him about 'gun/rifle' type pieces?... ones that don't
move during capture but instead 'shoot' a piece from several squares
away?

questions: with the vao/pao properties given to the bishops/rooks
respectively... they only leap a friendly piece... was this
intentional?...

if you make a zrf have you thought of asking your son joshua to design the
pieces using a paint program?

i participate in chess/xiangqi tournaments at another internet site...
during their tournaments they allow the players to study 'printed'
material, but no computer/ai help is allowed...

hi christine,
how about the squirrel piece? (like a colonel in american chess)... 
2-0,2-1,2-2

hi,
i'm working on a new variant - 21st century chess - but am having a
problem with the zrf. does anyone feel like taking a look?

it's 16 files by 9 ranks. i'm trying to introduce long-range, 'gun'
type pieces; an extension of the gun and machinegun pieces found in the
variant, 'chess battle'... but i'm fairly lost in the .zrf code...
cobbling pieces of code together for the gun capture-type of moves from
'chess battle'... i'm not sure if i have the moves codes for the
various slides correct.

i need the standard rook/bishop/queen slide, plus the chinese cannon (vao
and pao) slide, and the slide move for a piece which slides but doesn't
capture... only moves along blank squares... such pieces capture using the
'gun capture' move instead...

anyway the message i'm getting is, 'while reading a true/false
condition, the following non-piece-attribute was encountered: 'empty''






thanks in advance for any help,
andy

if a pawn moves 4 on the first move, it yet has to move 6 more spaces to
promote. it gets worse for the pawn in this regard if it only moves 1, 2,
or 3 squares on that first move...

what i'm saying is that, on a board this size you need more mobility from
your pawns... or maybe move the promotion line up a couple or few ranks
from the back line...

when i'm designing a variant i look at how quickly and powerfully the
pawns can promote, and depending on the variant adjust it in terms of FIDE
chess... do i want a game which plays faster or slower wrt to
promotions?... 

in any event this variant seems to make the pawn less important,

and yes the knights on this board are much weaker than they are on an 8x8
board... on a larger board like this the leapers need to have more
range... but that's just my taste...

speaking of the rooks and bishops, i would imagine that the rook becomes
even more powerful than the bishop, because the bishop's maximum move is
11 (12-1) squares diagonally while the rook can theoretically move 15 (16
-1) squares horizontally... it seems to me that boards which aren't
entirely square like this favor rooks even more than bishops....

i think this game would play better on 16x8, but then the bishops become
even weaker in comparison with rooks...

but with 12 ranks, man that is a long ways to go for a promotion! gives it
an old-fashioned feel in that regard...

hi,
i have gotten a working .zrf file for what i had previously described as,
'21st century chess'... 

seeing as how that title was taken, i have renamed it, 'operational
chess' instead...

i would like to upload the .zrf but instead thought some of you here might
want to take a look at it and comment first.

is that how it should be done, or should it simply be sent it off to
[email protected] and offered for download that way?


thanks

http://americanchess.tripod.com

Simply scroll down the page and you'll see it there at the bottom.

Hi,
As some of you know, i've been working on a game called, 'operational
chess.' I have a new variant which is closer to the original idea for the
game. 

After a lot of experimenting on victory conditions in the first version, i
came up with the idea of each side having 3 outposts and 2 strongpoints for
this 2nd, 'objective chess' version.

If you've played the original version (which i later nicknamed,
'carnage') you probably noticed that virtually every piece on the board
was under attack at the start. The missiles and bombers were usually the
first to go.

To make it more interesting for these powerful pieces, i re-implemented
the 'backline' rule from american chess where pieces on your own 1st
rank (or backline) are immune to your opponent's strongest pieces.

The board was enlarged to 17 files by 11 ranks and in contrast to the
original operational chess, almost none of the pieces start the game under
attack; and the attacks which can be made at the start are not worth
doing.

The rook and bishop (tank and cavalry) can leap 1-4 squares along their
traditional counterparts' axis; orthogonal for the tank and diagonal for
the cavalry. So these pieces don't have nearly the mobility of their
traditional counterparts, but their ability to move 'through' other
pieces gives them a different kind of ability.

Many pieces have a gun-capture (rifle-capture) capability. These are all
at varying ranges: Helicopter-4, Strongpoint-3, Tank-3, Cavalry-3,
Infantry-2, and Outpost-1. This gun-capture capability is along both the
orthogonal and diagonal for all such pieces.


The 2-star, 3-star, and 4-star generals can move 2, 3, or 4 spaces in any
combination of directions. The 3-star and 4-star generals in particular
are able to approach the long-range gun-capture units outside of rheir
8-way firing lanes.

In any event this new version of Operational Chess is much closer to what
i'd originally intended it to be. I have submitted the .zrf .zip file to
the editor here, and to zillions-of-games.com, and have put it at the
website: 

http://americanchess.tripod.com

simply scroll down the page and you'll see it there at the bottom.

The early game starts with the infantry establishing short, range-2 firing
lanes while the helicopters, tanks, and cavalry move up for support. The
generals also move off of the backline and try to get within striking
distance of the long-range gun-capture pieces of the opponent. With the
relatively short range of virtually every piece on the board, pieces can
flow back and forth behind the main line of combat, organizing attacks and
counterattacks. 

A well-placed gun-capture piece can typically threaten 3 or more of the
opponent's pieces along its 8-way firing axis. 

The infantry can form pickets in the late to mid-game; 2 squares apart so
their gun captures interlock.

It's difficult to stop a concerted attack against your outposts. It is
much easier to defend your 2 strongpoints. Nonetheless, if given the
opportunity you can bolster the defense of your outposts by moving some of
the nearby pawns up 1 rank before your opponent gets the chance to do the
same.


The end-game involves multiple pieces supporting each other on a final
attack against the opponent's strongpoints. If you've done well you'll
also have missile and/or bomber superiority.


I hope you enjoy it.

thanks for your consideration,
andy

there is a new variant to 'operational chess' at the zillions of games
site....

it is called 'land/sea chess' and is played on a 15 file x 9 rank board

on 'leftmost' 5 files are 'sea'... the 5 middle files are
'land-sea'... the 'rightmost' 5 files are 'land'... so it is like 3
small, 5 file x 9 rank boards side by side: 

sea land-sea land

3 smaller boards making up a 15x9 board...

the pieces which start at 'sea' can move anywhere over the sea files,
plus
the 5 'land-sea' files (the center)... the pieces which start on
'land' can
enter anywhere over the 5 land files, and anywhere in the land-sea
files...


the sea pieces cannot enter land, and the land pieces cannot enter sea...

the pieces which start on the 'land-sea' files can move to sea,
land-sea,
and land; they can move anywhere... these are hovercraft (GEV), marines,
special forces, and the hq...

the game is won by capturing the opponent's hq... there is a 'gun'
version
where several piece types have 'rifle' or 'gun' capture abilities (in
addition to their normal moves)... and there is a 'non-gun' variant
where
none of the pieces have gun capture...

this is a very interesting variant... the frigates (sea) and helicopters
(land) are a couple of my favorite pieces... 

the general and admiral pieces are strong, as are the special forces,
submarine, and paratrooper... 

missile ships and cavalry are variants on the erstwhile bishop piece,
while the tank and aircraft carrier are based upon the traditional
rook/chariot

the GEV is probably the best all-around piece...  and it is versatile in
that it can enter land and sea both... 

i've seen games where side a) will lose just about all of their land
pieces for instance, then side b) will in turn move their own hq to the
land side of the board, then side a) has a lot of difficulty in trying to
capture side b's hq... 

one time i thought i had the computer beat, but did just as the example
above; lost my army whilst retaining a strong sea contignent... as it
turned out i simply didn't have the pieces on land to take out the
computer's hq...

so the gevs take on added importance in the late game, being able to move
all over the board... same with the marines, but to a lesser extent...

also important are the frigate and helicopters, at least in the default,
'gun' mode... with their range-3 gun captures they can 'interdict'
well
into the areas where they are not otherwise allowed to move... so it is
as
though these two piece types 'cover' a little bit more of the board
than
most other sea or land types... they are the only 2 gun-capture pieces
with range 3... all others are range 2 or 1...

i seem to have found a variant on this game... i purchased it at a chinese
bookstore... it has a river, like the one here appears to have... but it
has 2 bridges instead of 1... and it has diagonals (with interlocking
points) drawn in the river, and naval pieces (in addition to army,
artillery, and air)... it has 30 pieces per side... i will try to get some
pics...

if you get a zillions implementation i would certainly play it... sounds
like an incredible game

indeed, i agree with fergus... it's virtually impossible to get a
checkmate in the situation you describe, without your opponent
deliberately handing you the game... 

in an end-game like this, if you had a horse and a pawn instead, you might
have a slightly better chance than with a single chariot...

a single attacking chariot against perhaps a defending king and just one
each of mandarin and elephant; you might also be able to get a win in a
situation like that...

but in your scenario, with the 'twin interlocking layers' provided by
the intact pairs of mandarins and elephants remaining on defense... your
chances at checkmate employing a single chariot are virtually nil... at
least in my opinion... 

best to offer a draw and start anew...

I have been playing a bit of both chinese chess and western (fide) chess
and have a few general observations as to why each is a unique
'variant.'

1) Space: chinese chess - with its 90 cells (versus 64 for fide) and open
files at the start - simply plays with a more 'wide open' feel. 

2) Development: With the more immediate attack lines available in chinese
chess, the middle game seems to begin at about 5-10 turns earlier than in
fide games.

3) Firepower: Perhaps this touches on the ongoing discussion here as to
the value of various pieces. In chinese chess you have far less firepower
on a larger board than in fide. FIDE has such powerful bishops, and the
queen; plus the knights are more powerful than their horse counterparts
in
chinese chess. In chinese chess, the lack of firepower is balanced by
confining the 2 opposing kings to their respective 'castles;' whereas
with the added firepower and smaller board of fide the kings roam free.

4) The River and the Late Game: With only 11 of 16 pieces able to move
across the river in chinese chess, this is a marked contrast to the
complete mobility of all pieces in fide. Sometimes, the limited number of
offensive pieces remaining at the end of a xiang qi game can make
checkmating the opposing king very difficult. 

Well, these are just a few observations; I'm sure there are many
contrasts that have been left out.

In the actual theory of both games i consider myself to be a
'manueverist,' always looking to trade pieces for position; a risky
prospect to say the least, but when it pays off it seems to do so in
spectacular fashion.

In fide i like to clear the board; open lanes whilst trading my knights
for my opponent's bishops, preferring to go into the end game with a more
open board and my bishop pair remaining. I always keep in mind that the
first bishop lost is worth more than the one which remains, something like
3.5 points for #1 and 2.5 points for #2; this is why i like to keep the
pair intact.

but i digress... Does anyone have any other comments on differences
they've noticed between xiang qi and fide chess?

chessmen-at-arms struck me because it is another attempt to integrate
wargames with conventional chess... 

aside from the 'chinese army chess' (super stratego) and the 'risk
chess,' are there any other chess/wargame variants?

interestingly, i had worked up a board for a game called, 'russo-german
chess'... to recreate the 'eastfront' of ww2 in a chess format.

in theory, the pieces are going to be 'empty containers' and the two
players would be able to secretly apply 'points' to their respective
containers from a pool of points, before battles were resolved.

i hadn't gotten to the movement mechanics... whether it should be a lot
of german moves, then a russian response, or an i-go-you-go like most
chess variants... in any event there are prototype map and some vague
piece theory...

i like these pieces... 

i like how the pieces sort of illustrate the moves in some cases, such as
the hunter/falcon... you can kind of tell how they move by their
respective designs... this is always a great bonus in piece design, in my
opinion...

btw, you can add 'colonel' to the castle/squirrel definition if you
want... the 'colonel' in american chess moves exactly like the
castle/squirrel... just a thought...

at a certain point with large boards and many pieces, a variant should
probably have multiple moves per side at a time, instead of 1 move per
side...

or the pieces should be really powerful...

if you have a large board with single-moves and weak pieces, time can
become a factor... some people might think it takes too long to play

so i would imagine that, when designing the 'ideal' large board chess
variant each of us attempts to factor these considerations in

board size
piece power
moves per side
time