Comments by MatsWinther

But collision movement, and bounce-movement, were designed to be wholly
intuitive, coinciding with physical laws (cannon-jumps might be more
difficult however). When a billiard ball 'collides' orthogonally with
another ball, it will continue in one of two diagonal directions (or come
to a halt). It also collides against the margin and then continues in
another direction. Likewise 'bouncing' occurs when the piece bounces off
in the alignment direction (against another piece), like in a pinball game.
Of course, it will take time to understand these pieces. Perhaps they will
never become popular. But, regardless, it's fun to try something new. At 
least it's interesting to investigate their properties.

Mats

I wrote an article about the bifurcation pieces which I posted to the
editors. You can also find it on the following link. There is a chart of
all the different pieces and their properties. In the images below one
would like the new pieces to be placed on the extra squares, but in these
cases the strategical variety is much better with this placement.
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/bifurcation.htm

As I understand the rules, the Kampa (pawn) should be able to move in all
directions after the first move, not only on the diagonals. Then it
becomes too weak(?). I have also implemented Gala in Zillions here:
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/gala.htm

However, I have followed the rules employed by the German enthusiasts
exactly, and added some variants. But it's good to have yet another
implementation, to try out variant rules. But the Kampa rule in this
implementation is incorrect, I think. /Mats

Cazaux's Zillions implementation of Wildebeest Chess has a bug: 
when a pawn makes a triplicate step, an opponent pawn cannot 
capture 'en passant' if the bypassing pawn ends up on the rank behind.  
http://www.chessvariants.com/programs.dir/zillions/wildebeest.zip
http://www.chessvariants.com/programs.dir/zillions/cazauxchess.zip

Moreover, Cazaux's implementation of Bolyar Chess (in casauxchess.zip)
doesn't seem to follow the rules that appear on the Internet, and which I 
have recently implemented. Cazaux gives no source for his version of the 
rules. Instead Omega Chess is described. My Bolyar Chess:
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/bolyarchess.htm  /Mats

I have now implemented Mongolian Hiashatar in Zillions. The Bodyguard piece
is very interesting. I have assumed that the bodyguard can only stymie the
movement of enemy pieces. If it could also stymie the movement of friendly
pieces, then the game would become awkward.
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/hiashatar.htm  /Mats

Charles, they are actually on the diagram (striped horses).
I strongly suspect that it's possible, in any big-board variant, to add
Kwaggas in exchange for the knights. In some cases the game might become
more attractive while the Kwagga seems always to have the same value, more
or less, as a bishop. This means that they can be exchanged. Sometimes the
knight seems to play a retiring role. Adding Kwaggas would change this. I
will probably add Kwaggas to Mastodon Chess. I wonder how this extinct
species would fare in all those popular Capablanca variants. /Mats

The 'Orphic Chess' Java applet follows the wrong rules. Pieces on the
board should only be able to move if they can capture, or if the king has
already been placed. These faulty rules makes the game useless. It is
imperative that the correct rules are implemented, otherwise these chess
variant applets function only as disinformation. People will think that
Orphic Chess is crap if they play this applet. At least, I would wish that my 
name be removed from the applet because it misrepresents my variant.

http://www.pathguy.com/chess/OrphicCh.htm

If I search for an external link item, for instance, 'Orphic Chess', then
the search engine doesn't find it although it exists on the CV pages.

It gets better and better. Please consider adding Chess256 to v1.0. Of
course. everybody cannot expect to have their personal variants added, but
this one is rather easy to implement, and it is a good training concept for
'orthodox' chess players who have no help from opening theory from the
first move, while the positions are very similar to normal chess.
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/randompawn.htm
/Mats

Chess programs, like Deep Fritz, have recourse to immense opening and
endgame databases. So why don't the human opponents have this resource?
It's not a fair fight. /Mats

Former World Champion Tigran Petrosian said that he learned to calculate by
reading chess books, and by trying to manage without a chess board between
the diagrams. My free blindfold chess program for DOS is ideal for this
type of training. It will also work under all Windows versions. If you own
PocketDOS it will run on your palmtop device. It works finely on my Casio
BE-300. You input moves at the command prompt by typing, e.g., 'g1f3'.
Whenever you want you can display an ascii diagram of the board position.
It also includes Chess256 functionality. Chess256 implies that the pawns
in the initial position are randomized on the second and third rank.
/Mats
 
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/blindc.htm

Reinhard, please consider adding Chess256 to Smirf. It is rather easy to
implement, and it is a good training concept for 'orthodox' chess
players who will have no help from opening theory from the first move,
while the positions are very similar to normal chess.
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/randompawn.htm
My BlindChess can already play Chess256, but its a rather weak DOS
program. But it's good for testing Chess256.
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/blindc.htm
/Mats

I suppose you could send your contribution to the webmasters address, which
is at the bottom of the page.
http://www.bcvs.ukf.net/
/Mats

What's the spy?

My Leto Chess seems to have fallen between the chairs. Would some of the
editors publish it, please. The Leto is a peculiar piece.
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MLletochess

My Leto Chess seems to have fallen between the chairs. Would some of the
editors publish it, please. The Leto is a peculiar piece.
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MLletochess

This is not correct. My Brigadier is *not* the same as the 'Super
General' in Supremo Superchess. The Brigadier moves and captures like a
Queen but can also *capture* an enemy if there is another piece in between, 
and any interim squares are empty.

However, in Supremo Superchess the 'Super General' can also jump
*without capturing*. This makes an immense difference. The Super
General's movement freedom is overwhelming, while the Brigadier's
movement is much more restricted. So the Brigadier is not the same as
Mr. Howe's unpublished Optima and Nova, either, as these, allegedly,
use the Super General moves.

Moreover, the Brigadier is a very useful piece. I, too, have discarded
several piece inventions, but the Brigadier was found to work very well. I
have implemented it in Zillions and tested it in several computer-computer
games. It was found not to be overwhelmingly powerful, and the activity of
the pieces remained distributed between the different pieces, i.e., the
Brigadier did not move around too much.

It's not possible to go between to protect a piece that is directly
threatened by a Brigadier (because the Brigadier can capture by jumping).
But this doesn't matter much because, while the Brigadier is so valuable,
all pieces, except the king, can stay put if directly threatened by the
Brigadier. A king standing on the same diagonal/orthogonal as an enemy
Brigadier needs two pieces between itself and the enemy Brigadier to be
protected. This is not hard to accomplish since the highly movable
friendly Brigadier can be used as defensive piece. 

As to Fergus's 'uninvented' Tank and Bazooka: pieces must be properly
tested, I think, before deciding whether they work. Moreover, such pieces
could, after all, be blocked by a Bodyguard, which can stymie piece
movement. So it also depends on the context if they can be used.

Andy, I have never experimented with 'different armies' chess variants,
although I always use this concept when testing the strength of new
pieces. Pitting Amazons against Brigadiers is an interesting concept,
which you could try to implement in some form.  /Mats

That's Chess256, if pawns are randomly placed only on second and third row.
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/randompawn.htm
/Mats

When choosing 'Using HTML tags' when creating messages in this forum the
lines become much longer than usual. It becomes awkward to read. If some
of the editors could fix this. Please shorten the lines so that they are
on a par with non-html messages, or at least, let the html code be so 
that the text remains within the window. /Mats

Editors, I've posted to you twice already. Please remove the following
item:
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MLcolumbiad_ches
It's doubly published. In this item I gave the wrong board dimensions. As
there is no way of returning and fixing a mistake of this kind, I had to
create a new item with the same name. But you have published both. /Mats

Telekinetic pieces, and catapult pieces, open up the possibility of
immobile pawns, that is, pawns that can only move when being dislocated by
other pieces, but still can promote at the last rank. /Mats

Glenn, it is true that the amount of opening lines is very central to the
long-term vitality of a variant (i.e. if it can survive theorization). If
we go back to Kramnik - Kasparov World Chess Championship 2000. How
inspiring was this to the vast majority of amateurs? In the eyes of the
experts it was probably a good and interesting match. But can amateurs
really appreciate the Berlin defence with queen exchange, where the result
is a draw in game after game? Of course, the promotive effect would have
been greater had they played King's gambit, or the Evan's gambit in the
Giuoco Piano. But such openings are obsolete among the elite. 

Had the possible opening lines been vastly greater, then white needn't
try to prize open that stubborn defence in game after game. But Kasparov
is forced to play 3.Bb5 because 3.Bc4 is a draw. It is as simple as that!
King's gambit is a draw, too, or possibly worse. Do you see my point? The
grandmasters are facing a problem in the openings which risks making the
game tedious. They have to rely on 'Fritz analyses to the 45th move' in
that particular critical variant. Soon we must rename the World
Championship to 'The World Championship in Opening Preparation With The
Aid of Computers and Seconds.' I'll have a look at Tiger Chess. 
/Mats

In order to know how the Chinese Cannon fares in this congested situation one would need to test this in a Zillions program. The situation is quite different compared with Chinese Chess where there are always open lines. 
/Mats