Comments by GregoryStrong
I believe that there should be some criteria to limit the number of submissions, which propose concepts that can be regarded as too generic or unoriginal, similar to the system used in patents. Maybe there's an idea behind this variant, why it was made this way and whether it will be interesting to play, but it is not described.
I do believe we should limit submissions. As time goes on and there are more and more variants, the criteria for publication should become more difficult.
That said, I think this is something new. The wide board with multiple sets has been done before but the space behind is new. It reminds me of Chess on a 12 x 12 Board, but without extra space on the sides. I think this setup gives the flank bishops the opportunity to attack the center by moving downwards. And it gives the rooks an ability to increase their mobility by moving down. The knights on the far wings, however, are probably worthless.
The Diagram Designer does require some understanding. Here are the steps to do this particular diagram:
1. Put in the FEN code "24/24/24/24/rnbqqbnrrnbqkbnrrnbqqbnr/pppppppppppppppppppppppp/24/24/24/24/PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPRNBQQBNRRNBQKBNRRNBQQBNR/24/24/24/24"
2. Change the "Number of Columns" to 24
3. If desired, change the "Set" to Alfaerie or whatever
Here is a resulting diagram:
Sorry you had to struggle with it so long.
Pawn = 1, Woody Rook (WD) = 3, Knight = 3, Elephant (FA) = 3.25, Courier = 3.50, Man (FW) = 3.50, Rook = 5.50 and Gryphon = 8 points
I think this is a reasonable valuation. The biggest difference I'd have is that I'd put the Gryphon at at least 9, and with an endgame value of 10. His mobility goes up significantly as the board clears out becuase the "choke points" that block the double paths are more likely to be empty. But even more importantly, in true endgame, the ability to two full ranks or files is deadly. The threat is always there.
Knight and Modern Elephant (FA) may be a touch high (quarter pawn maybe) but wtihin the margin of uncertainty at this point. I think the WD would go up in endgame due to his king interdiction ability. The FA may go down in late endgame if the colorbinding becomes a problem. And the Man at 3.5 is almost certainly at least a little high. I'd say 3 and maybe 3.25 in endgame. Queen of 10 seems right on. Rook of 5.5 is also what I use, but with an endgame value of 6. (When the board truly clears out, the Rooks & Gryphins will dominate.)
I agree with Fergus, but as a more general answer may I say that I believe this has value. It gives us another way to highlight games that the community feels has value, in temporary way (as opposed to making something Recognized, or whatever, that declares value in a more permenant way).
We all know the issue -- there are a million chess variants (figuratively, and maybe literally) and how do we -- the CVP community who know about these things -- call out those worthy of further attention?
The procedure we are following makes sense to me. Let us give it a try. It seems to be working. Eurasian Chess and Cylindrical Chess are both worthy of notice for many reasons. If the Featured Variants offers no value, it will go away. If it creates problems, it will be refined or it will go away. This forum is an evolving entity. We do not need to answer every question before anything is done.
That's because this page is a static HTML page, not a database-driven dynamic page like later entries. (You'll notice the icon is different -- the dynamic pages have a solid blue square with a lower-case letter m).
What changes would you like to make?
We can already filter searches by page type, so index clutter doesn't seem a huge concern. I would support cleanup at the database level: we duplicate information about the game for each page about it. But of course changing the database structure would require a very careful undertaking.
I don't think we need a radical transformation. A few years back, Fergus added a "GameID" column to the Item table. The goal is to populate that with a unique value for each game so that all the pages for a given game can be readily associated. I started populating it but didn't get too far. I'm willing to go back to it if there is a desire to make use of it for a better game-centric organization.
Personally, I think any variant that has an interactive diagram doesn't need a Java app page. They clog up the index and offer little value. There are so many alternatives at this point.
The "variation" setting should not result in it making bad moves. The "weakening" setting certainly can if you turn it up. Regarding endgames, when the material gets down to only a few pieces, ChessV can have difficulty determining how to close the deal. I need to post a new build - I have made some definite improvements in this area.
Ok, I'll go first. I nominate Cylindrical Chess. It has been around for probably two hundred years, has been a problem theme for over a hundred years, was played in NOST, and has logged 30 games on Game Courier. It has been supported by ChessV for at least 15 years. And, perhaps most importantly, it has that ususual characteristic of making a single, easily understood change to the game of Chess that leads to something completely new.
@Fergus, please look at this. I know there are a lot of demands for your time but this is a big issue.
The preset for this game is broken because every game is that has a rank labelled 0.
It seems any GC preset or diagram designer diagram that has a rank "0" no longer works.
If you have at least one colorbound piece on each shade, there is a half pawn bonus. If you have two or more colorbound pieces on one shade with none on the other, there is a large penalty.
TenCubed and Opulent were both entries in the 10 Contest. David and I both decided to use the number 10 by having 10 piece types on an 10-by-10 board, so they are pretty similar. Although Opulent has seen more play, I think TenCubed is probably the better game. I have had a very difficult time getting a good opening array in Opulent. It needs to change yet again ...
I think this needs a little clarification. It says:
The objective is to checkmate the opponent’s “0” by attacking it so that it has no safe positions to move to.
But it also says:
“Zero”: Stay still, moves and captures 0 steps.
So can the 0 move if attacked? Or must an attack on it be resolved by capturing the attacker or moving another piece in the way? (In which case, any double-check would automatically be mate).
This has been published. Although very similar to Janus, I consider it an improvement and sufficiently different to justify having its own page.
Presumably, there was some reason that was not apparent. No way for me to say.
The king has a value of 0.
You expressed an opinion. H.G. expressed a different opinion, complete with the logic behind it. I don't see anything objectionable here, except possibly the last sentence, and even there I think you are being too sensitive.
You often express strong opinions - sometimes quite forcefully, especially regarding the names of pieces. You also sometimes respond poorly to alternate opinions.
That's right. If white's last move was a chancellor, then it is a stalemate by either the old rules or the new rules.
I have no idea what you mean
Ok, diagram updated with Chancellor.
What was White's last move? The version you have doesn't have the updated rules yet, so the black joker can't move. In the updated version, the black joker will have the ability of white's last move, which could make it a checkmate if it attacks the white king. Otherwise, it is still a stalemate under the new rules. Any piece white moves would lead to white's king being in check by the black joker. Even white moving joker (imitating a king) would make black's joker imitate a king and therefore it is still check. Since white cannot move, it's a stalemate.
This should be close enough for discussion:
No improvement. Now it just goes to an empty white page (without updating anything in the database)
So this game is basically Janus Chess with the Knights and Archbishops swapped ... but the Archbishops are actually called Archbishop and not Janus (which I consider an improvement), and the King is to the right of the Queen as in Chess (which I also consider an improvement).
Is that right or are there any differences I missed?
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.
Thanks, Fergus. Been tied up by work as of late. Some of these have been pending description for a long time. Here's a quick summary: