Kibbitz Listing
wrote on Bob:
The pawns in this game are shatranj pawns. They only move 1 square on the first move.
Joe
wrote on Now *there* was a "whoops!"
wrote on Now *there* was a "whoops!"
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 Aargh! Talk about hitting the wrong button!
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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'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 How about:
[D+W]/[A+F]
This specifies it is either a linear hero or a linear shaman in its
movement.
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 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 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 Uh-oh! The *workers* step 1; the warriors don't. Lol! Oops. Rats! ;-)
wrote on Graeme, is this move legal: 'rm7-yb7;ye7-yd7;yc7-' ?
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 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 This is a family site. Genteel trash talk is fine.
:-)
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 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 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 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 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 Hey je ju; you should be able to castle just by moving the rook: j8-g8.
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 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 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 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 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 Nice job, Gary; congratulations! You outplayed me here; maybe I'll get ya next time. Enjoy! Joe
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 Yes. ;-)
[This *is* a 'political' game]
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.