Game Reviews by DavidPaulowich
A Giant (Alibaba) is a weak piece in spite of all its jumping around. The four of them are worth no more than a Queen on the 10x10 board. The Behemoth Rider moves like a Free Dwar in JETAN, but apparently without the 'did not cross the same square twice' restriction. This piece is powerful.
The Two-Headed Cyclops is worth perhaps 15 percent more than a Rook. Ralph Betza, writing on 'Bent Riders', values the Gryphon at around 45 percent more than a Rook. Unlike the Two-Headed Cyclops , the Gryphon can move and capture like a Ferz. After crunching some numbers to compare this army with the 'Human' or Grand Chess Army, I found them to be almost equal in total strength. Any advantage for the Giants reduces to the superiority of the Two-Headed Cyclops over the Rook. The Maharaja and the Sepoys game teaches us that the pawnless army will face many difficulties, enough to cancel out this tiny advantage.
'Giants' versus 'Humans' should make an interesting match. I have not examined the other fantasy armies yet. Comment [2005-02-09] by George Duke includes the statements: 'Elves are stronger, Druids not so.' and 'This analysis is not comprehensive.'
Interesting use of 'color alternating' pieces here. On an empty board, the nonleaping Dwar moves to the same 16 squares as the Gryphon. In Jetan, the Dwar makes exactly three Wazir-moves.
Greg, I really hate the way a lone King can hide from a Rook in those 'Omega Chess corners'. Why not stretch Gustav III's Chess to a 10x10 board with missing squares from x1-x8 and z1-z8, in your notation. As I commented on the Gustav III Game Courier Preset: all the usual forced mates seem to work there - also a King and two Cannons can mate a lone king - which can only happen after a terrible blunder on a rectangular board. [EDIT] Greg points out that I missed the disappearing extra squares rule in this variant. Added my rating.
Cazaux's Zillions implementation of Wildebeest Chess is also missing the stalemate victory rule. See my comment here. There are even more comments on the 'Recognized Chess Variant: Wildebeest Chess' page here. As I stated there, we have very little information about the problems involved in forcing stalemate.
My [2005-12-17] Comment to Joe Joyce's 'Two Large Shatranj Variants' proposed some variants with the following replacements. I do not recall the Great Rook or Great Bishop ever having been used in a game. [EDIT] Key McKinnis used a wide selection of pieces in Drop Chess (2000), including the Demon (Great Rook ) and the Pope (Great Bishop).
[EDIT 2023-02-12] In Insect Chess (2001) Tim Bostick writes "The Locust moves like a Praying Mantis or like a chess queen." The Locust moves like a Great Rook, a Great Bishop and (probably) also like a Knight.
Marshall/Chancellor replaced by Great Rook = Rook + Afil + Ferz
Cardinal/Archbishop replaced by Great Bishop = Bishop + Dabbabah + Wazir
Queen replaced by Centaur = Knight + Wazir + Ferz
A search for *Pairwise* on the Game Courier Game Logs will turn up my two games of 'Pairwise Drop Chess' from 2004 - the 'free castling with the two nearest rooks' rule is given in the comments below each game.
As a mathematician, I prefer to avoid making claims of 'maximal logical consistency' for my own chess variants. All things considered, I would rather not comment on pages containing such claims, especially when the author has a plan for reducing the number of draws.
As for the 'business of unprotected Pawns', which was raised in previous comments here, that has been a problem in chess variant design ever since the Mad Queen was invented centuries ago. It is NOT a problem in Shatranj, where the Elephants on the first rank can NEVER attack the unprotected Pawns on the seventh rank. And I for one refuse to worry about the threat of a Knight taking four moves to cross the board and capture an undefended Pawn.
In Cavalry Chess (Frank Maus, 1921) the Knight is replaced by a Knight-Camel-Zebra compound. Maus attempts to balance this piece by using a much stronger king, but does not succeed, according to Fergus Duniho's essay on the same page.
Gast's Chess has an ordinary King (with more castling options) facing Knight-Camel-Alfil compounds, plus Archers and Guards. That gives your opponent six pieces that can checkmate by capturing your undefended j-file Pawn.
1. Can(n)on-c3,remaining Can(n)on-Pao, King-a1
2. Can(n)on-e3,changing to Can(n)on-Vao, King-b1
3. Cannon-d2 King-a1
4. Cannon-d1 King-b1
5. Can(n)on-g1,changing to Can(n)on-Pao, mate.
Daniel Roth makes some interesting suggestions. But a game with slow moving Pawns needs to be played on a smaller board. Start with the 'Grand Chess' initial setup on a 10x10 board, replacing the Marshalls on the f-file with Dragon Kings and the Cardinals on the g-file with Dragon Horses. I think the shortest possible game is: 1.e3-e4, e8-e7 2.e4-e5, Queen d9-h5 3.King e2-e3, Queen h5xe5 mate.
Cohen's Error Chess (1977) probably did have some influence on Ralph Betza's Remarkable Rookies (Chess with Different Armies). Both variants replace the knights with W+D pieces, called Woody Rooks by Betza.
White: Knight (d3) and Pawn (e7), Black: Knight (a6) and Rook (d8) +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ 8 | |:::| |:r:| |:::| |:::| +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ 7 |:::| |:::| |:P:| |:::| | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ 6 | n |:::| |:::| |:::| |:::| +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ 5 |:::| |:::| |:::| |:::| | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ 4 | |:::| |:::| |:::| |:::| +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ 3 |:::| |:::| N |:::| |:::| | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ 2 | |:::| |:::| |:::| |:::| +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ 1 |:::| |:::| |:::| |:::| | +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ a b c d e f g h
leads to 1.exd8(K) Nb8 2.Kc7 Na6 3.Kb7 mate! Promotion to a Queen is stalemate. To meet Robert's challenge in the first Comment, we need to verify that promotion to either Bishop or Rook in this position will also lead to a draw. This 'capture promotion' ending could reasonably happen in a real game after the Black Rook had captured on d8. But it would be extremely rare.
Grand Cavalier Chess takes the innovative army of Cavalier Chess and puts it on a larger board. Then it adds two Chinese Cannons to each side, giving them freedom of movement rarely seen in 'hybrid' variants. Note: Fergus needs to state explicitly if a Cavalier always gives check on its last rank, even when it it cannot advance to that rank and promote. That would be consistent with the rules of Grand Chess.
Drawless Chess is not a game variant. It is simply a comment. Any debate should be moved to Adrian King's 'Scirocco' page.
Consider the position: WHITE K(c2) BLACK K(a1) and P(a2). Now White can score a stalemate victory in Shatranj and some other games by simply moving the King to c1. I am not happy with any rule which forces White to move away and lose the game. Showdown Chess is not a game I would want to play.
http://www.chessvariants.org/multiplayer.dir/tandem.html is the page for the (Recognized) variant pair Bughouse/Tandem Chess. Bughouse is insanely(!) popular in Canada - kids especially. Crazyhouse requires two chess sets for only two players, which is not practical at tournaments or at small chess clubs.
Shatranj Kamil (64) is my recent attempt at providing a comprehensive set of rules for Shatranj variants.
Consider the endgame position White: King (c1), Knight (a6) Black: King (a1), Pawn (a3). White can force checkmate with 1.Nb4 a2 2.Nc2, or stalemate with 2.Kc2.
If White choses to play 2.Na6 instead, then, under the variant rule that Pritchard cites, the Black king can escape stalemate by transposing with the Black Pawn. Question: under the rules of Nilakantha's Intellectual Game (web page by John Ayer) can Black 'slay the piece of the enemy in his vicinity which imprisons him'? That piece is the White King!
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.
Bede notes: Eric Greenwood's Archabbott is a BWD, a piece which I once called the 'Grand Bishop'. Never managed to find a use for the Grand Bishop or the Grand Rook (RFA).