Comments by DavidPaulowich

Jason makes some good points concerning 10x10 chess variant design. I prefer placing Cannons on the back ranks, as in Shako and Shatranj Kamil X. Now the White Rooks will either have to share the first rank with the Cannons or position themselves on the second rank.

Clicking on gnohmon in the previous post will take you to Ralph Betza's Google Profile, which shows another 5 posts in October, 2007.

This is a very good 10x10 chess variant, ranking perhaps a little below Shako. I must disagree with some of the piece values given, especially in the endgame. I consider a Ferz to be worth at least a quarter of a Rook on 10x10 boards, so the Steward (adding noncapturing Wazir moves) should be worth at least two-fifths of a Rook.

Queen=9.1, Rook=5.0, Murray Lion=??, Bishop=3.1, Knight=2.7, Camel=2.5, Steward=??, Pawn=0.9 are consistent with the endgame values I have been using for years. While 'three-leapers' like the Camel appear to perform very well on 10x10 boards, I cannot value this awkward colorbound piece higher than half a Rook. In any variant where they can promote to Queens, five connected Pawns stand a good chance of defeating a lone Rook. See Opulent Lemurian Shatranj for a 10x10 chess variant, which also has a Commoner worth at least 3.1 points on this scale. The Murray Lion is a strange piece which, I believe, shares the Commoner's ability to checkmate a lone King. I value it somewhere between a Bishop and a Rook.

Seven years have passed since the last game of King's Court was played on this site. This large (12x8) chess variant inspired the following set of rules. I never succeeded in inventing a game using these rules and I no longer have the free time to conduct the necessary playtesting.

Rule One: Only simple pieces like the Rook, Bishop, and Nightrider have unlimited movement.

Rule Two: Compound pieces cannot move more than four squares. For example: a 'Queen' would actually be a Q4, limited to a maximum move of four squares.

Rule Three: A compound of three pieces cannot move more than two squares. The Chancellor in King's Court is an example of such a piece.

The question of sufficient mating force becomes more complex on larger boards. See the thread 12x12_checkmate for some interesting results obtained by H. G. Muller. In particular, both the Commoner (FW) and the Half-Duck (HFD) may fail to force mate against a lone King on a 16x16 board. A 12x12 board can be 'too large' for the Woody Rook (WD) or even the (WAD) piece.

Ralph Betza wrote about piece values as follows: 'Surprisingly enough, a Commoner (a piece that moves like a King but doesn't have to worry about check) is very weak in the opening, reasonably good in the middlegame, and wins outright against a Knight or Bishop in the endgame. (There are no Commoners in FIDE chess, but the value of the Commoner is some guide to the value of the King).

What can you say about the poor Knight? It doesn't get any weaker as the game goes on, it's just that the other pieces get stronger while the Knight stays the same. In fact, it would be reasonable to conclude that the value of the Knight during the opening and middlegame exceeds its conventional value. In fact, that would explain why I have won so many games by allowing my opponent to 'win' a Bishop for a Knight in the early part of the game.'

That web page has inspired me to use the Silver General in several chess variants. Also, in a roundabout fashion, to create piece value systems on the 8x8, 10x10, 12x12 boards where the humble Knight is assigned a constant value, while the Rooks and Bishops gain strength on the larger boards.

Getting back to the Nutty Nights, their power is greatest in the early stages of the game, but they are extremely clumsy in the endgame. In my experience, the Remarkable Rookies are worth two points more than the FIDE army in the endgame. I am not ready to disagree with Betza's opinion that the NN and RR armies have equal chances of winning: both against each other and against the FF army.

Pasting from the Game Courier Ratings has a lot of new problems this year.
Players listed here have played at least five games and are rated 1500 and above.
 
Name                         Userid  GCR            Percent GCR1 GCR2
 
Hexa Sakk                    bosa60 1761  51.0/057 = 89.47% 1737 1784
Fergus Duniho                fergus 1655  27.0/035 = 77.14% 1628 1682
Nicholas Wolff               nwolff 1608  10.0/014 = 71.43% 1617 1598
Joe Joyce                  joejoyce 1600  14.5/022 = 65.91% 1587 1614
Carlos Cetina                 sissa 1585  46.5/091 = 51.10% 1585 1586 
 
Gary Gifford               penswift 1577   5.5/008 = 68.75% 1540 1615
Jose Carrillo        j_carrillo_vii 1571  24.5/041 = 59.76% 1556 1585
Uri Bruck                     bruck 1567   8.0/101 = 72.73% 1590 1544
Armin Liebhart              lunaris 1555  14.0/022 = 63.64% 1505 1604
xeongrey                   xeongrey 1554   4.0/007 = 57.14% 1554 1555 
 
Rob Brown                 steelhead 1550   4.0/007 = 57.14% 1543 1558
qixel                         qixel 1533   6.0/010 = 60.00% 1504 1562
jeddak_of_gathol   jeddak_of_gathol 1530   3.0/005 = 60.00% 1517 1543
Francois Tremblay  francoistremblay 1522   4.0/007 = 57.14% 1536 1507
Phoenix TKar              tkr101010 1519   4.0/007 = 57.14% 1476 1561 
 
Greg Strong             mageofmaple 1511   8.0/020 = 40.00% 1497 1524

Greg Strong asks: '... did the king really move and then move back to its starting square and thus lose the right to castle?'

That has created confusion in the past. Go to Tim Krabbe's website and click on the [Greatest number of castlings] for an official game where White castled twice: 10.O-O and 33.O-O-O. Most computer databases will cut off this game record before the second (illegal) castling.

Ralph Betza wrote: 'The Chancellor is roughly equivalent to the Queen even though the ideal value of N is presumably less than Bishop: the Bishop is colorbound and its practical value is ever so slightly more than a Knight, combining it with R removes the colorboundness, and therefore is a classical case of 'combining pieces to mask their weaknesses and thus allow their practical values to be fully expressed'; and therefore one might expect the Q to be worth notably more than the Chancellor.'

'One hypothesis about why the Chancellor does so well is that the R has a weakness that is masked when N is added to form Chancellor. This weakness would be its relative slowness and difficulty of development, and perhaps its lack of forwardness (it has only one forwards direction).'

P=100, N=300, B=300, R=500, C=850, Q=900 are my preferred values on 8x8 boards. Sometimes I like to say that the value of a Bishop is 5/8 times that of a Rook on any square board, which would bump the Bishop up to 312.5 points here (an insignificant change, which does not affect my strategy when playing FIDE chess). Back in the 1990s I used to debate the relative values of Queen and Chancellor with Betza. Years later I came up with a way to compare these two pieces indirectly, by introducing some new pieces. The 'Elephant' moves like a Ferz or an Alfil, and is worth 50 points less than a Bishop (I believe Joe Joyce agrees with me on that). The 'Grand Rook' moves like a Rook or an Elephant, and is worth 50 points less than a Queen (I am casting my solitary vote for that value). The Grand Rook and the Chancellor are similar enough in design that I would expect them to have the same value on any square board.

Some (tiny) steps have been taken towards CwDA opening theory. The page quoted below also has a link to a mini-tournament of CwDA games.

'The Paulowich Plan for playing with the Remarkable Rookies is very interesting.

My own first attempts at playing this army involved taking a cramped closed central position and suffering for a long while before winning; my second idea was to do a Halfduck Dance, which may work even though it goes against the general principle of developing weaker pieces first.

Pushing the b-Pawn so the WD can sit behind it is an interesting and creative idea; but in Paulowich-Aronson I'd instinctively prefer 3...a5-a4.

(My instinct could be wrong, of course.)' -- gnohmon [9 Oct 2001].

I found this comment by looking at a nonindexed page on this site: Recent Ratings and Comments, which actually covers old comments from [27 May 2001] to [31 Mar 2002]. This list is also available in another format: alphabetic by variant name, where you can more easily find the 1st Email Championship Chess w... comments. NOTE: the page name on the left links to the main page, while the three blue dots on the extreme right link to the comments.

This thread is calculated from all games played here in the last 365 days. 
You must play five games (against more than one opponent) to make this list.
 
Name                         Userid  GCR            Percent GCR1 GCR2
 
Hexa Sakk                    bosa60 1807 135.0/149 = 90.60% 1777 1837 
H S                         petyura 1706   7.0/007 =100.00% 1719 1692 
Armin Liebhart              lunaris 1623  24.0/033 = 72.73% 1590 1657 
Nicholas Wolff               nwolff 1623   4.0/005 = 80.00% 1618 1627 
Jose Carrillo        j_carrillo_vii 1618  38.5/058 = 66.38% 1586 1651 
 
Carlos Cetina                 sissa 1597  80.0/154 = 51.95% 1573 1622 
Neil Spargo                  spargo 1597   4.0/005 = 80.00% 1582 1611 
Joe Joyce                  joejoyce 1594  11.5/017 = 67.65% 1568 1621 
pallab basu                  pallab 1584   4.0/005 = 80.00% 1537 1630 
Fergus Duniho                fergus 1574  17.5/027 = 64.81% 1538 1611 
 
Nicholas Wolff                maeko 1561   3.0/005 = 60.00% 1520 1601 
Uri Bruck                     bruck 1549   7.0/011 = 63.64% 1525 1573 
Stephen Stockman      stevestockman 1546   3.0/005 = 60.00% 1574 1519 
Rob Brown                 steelhead 1539   3.0/006 = 50.00% 1533 1544 
jeddak_of_gathol   jeddak_of_gathol 1532   3.0/005 = 60.00% 1534 1531 
  
David Levins                midrael 1521   4.0/007 = 57.14% 1521 1521 
qixel                         qixel 1511   5.0/009 = 55.56% 1506 1517 
Scott McGreal          agentofchaos 1507   3.0/007 = 42.86% 1470 1545 
Vitya Makov                makov333 1498  74.5/190 = 39.21% 1438 1557

Running Tournament Filter: gamecourier4 will assign ratings and 
further demonstrate Carlos Cetina's accomplishment here.  Congratulations!
 
I may not have time to play many games on this site, but I am planning 
to post a few Game Courier presets (that I have already promised).
 
Name                         Userid  GCR          Percent GCR1 GCR2
 
Carlos Cetina                 sissa 1728 16.5/18 = 91.67% 1710 1746 
Jose Carrillo        j_carrillo_vii 1604 12.0/18 = 66.67% 1586 1622 
Vitya Makov                makov333 1590 11.0/18 = 61.11% 1580 1599 
Armin Liebhart              lunaris 1562 11.5/18 = 63.89% 1529 1594 
Fergus Duniho                fergus 1533 10.0/18 = 55.56% 1521 1545 
Thomas McElmurry           crazytom 1500  8.5/18 = 47.22% 1492 1507 
Joe Joyce                  joejoyce 1467  2.5/06 = 41.67% 1469 1465 
Sam Trenholme         sam_trenholme 1383  1.0/06 = 16.67% 1389 1378 
je ju                      jejujeju 1310  3.0/18 = 16.67% 1286 1334 
Nicholas Wolff       nickwolffrated 1306  2.0/18 = 11.11% 1284 1329

Samuel Loyd demonstrated a 12-move stalemate in 1906. The following game was played in a junior championship tournament in Sweden.

[Event 'SWE-chJ']
  [Site 'Borlange']
  [Date '1995.??.??']
  [Round '8']
  [White 'Upmark, Johan']
  [Black 'Johansson, Robin']
  [Result '1/2-1/2']
  
  1. c4 h5 
    2. h4 a5 
    3. Qa4 Ra6 
    4. Qxa5 Rah6 
    5. Qxc7 f6 
    6. Qxd7+ Kf7 
    7. Qxb7 Qd3
    8. Qxb8 Qh7 
    9. Qxc8 Kg6 
    10. Qe6     1/2-1/2

This table of piece values states that the endgame value of a COMMONER is halfway between a Knight and a Rook in FIDE Chess. Betza once pointed out that replacing the White Knights with Commoners in the initial setup can lead to a difficult game, while replacing the White Bishops with Commoners allows the White pieces to develop more quickly.

Ralph Betza also says on this web page: 'Surprisingly enough, a Commoner (a piece that moves like a King but doesn't have to worry about check) is very weak in the opening, reasonably good in the middlegame, and wins outright against a Knight or Bishop in the endgame. (There are no Commoners in FIDE chess, but the value of the Commoner is some guide to the value of the King).'

My [2006-01-10] comment here shows that Royal Knight and Commoner can sometimes checkmate a Royal Knight. This example also works with FIDE Knight and King against a Royal Knight.

Checkers (draughts) is popular on 10x10 boards in much of Europe. In Quebec it is played on both 10x10 and 12x12 boards. See the 10x10 Boards thread for more information.

Daniil: this EXTERNAL LINK leads to a list of games created by W. D. Troyka, including 6D Chess, with a 2x2x2x2x2x2 board.

L. L. Smith invented an interesting 4x4x4 variant called Chess Cubed, with all the pieces moving one step only. His 'Knights' are single step Unicorns. I am thinking about creating a preset for this game, but changing the initial setup to: White pieces on the lowest level (same as Raumschach).

ATTENTION: the following diagram and rules are (c) 2004 Jim Aikin and are taken from his webpage Five Up. Note: Jim's 5x5x5 variant sets up the White pieces on the top two levels, thus requiring the White Pawns to move downwards. Apart from this change, his pawn movement rules are the same as those stated in my comment ten days earlier.

Figure 6. The white pawn shown here, which is advancing toward the A5 row, 
can make capturing moves to the cells marked 'x' and non-capturing moves to the cells marked '+'.

   _ _ _ _ _     _ _ _ _ _     _ _ _ _ _     _ _ _ _ _     _ _ _ _ _  
5 |_|_|_|_|_| 5 |_|_|_|_|_| 5 |_|_|_|_|_| 5 |_|_|_|_|_| 5 |_|_|_|_|_| 
4 |_|_|_|_|_| 4 |_|x|_|_|_| 4 |x|+|x|_|_| 4 |_|_|_|_|_| 4 |_|_|_|_|_| 
3 |_|_|_|_|_| 3 |x|+|x|_|_| 3 |_|P|_|_|_| 3 |_|_|_|_|_| 3 |_|_|_|_|_| 
2 |_|_|_|_|_| 2 |_|_|_|_|_| 2 |_|_|_|_|_| 2 |_|_|_|_|_| 2 |_|_|_|_|_| 
1 |_|_|_|_|_| 1 |_|_|_|_|_| 1 |_|_|_|_|_| 1 |_|_|_|_|_| 1 |_|_|_|_|_| 
A  a b c d e  B  a b c d e  C  a b c d e  D  a b c d e  E  a b c d e 

Royal Exclusion Zone

Here is a new approach to the Slippery King problem on 6x6x6 boards, somewhat inspired by the rules of Chinese Chess. Both checkmate and stalemate count as wins. Let the King move in six directions like a Wazir, but forbid all other Kings from entering any of the 26 adjacent cells. This choice of words will also exclude a 'friendly' King in a four player game.

   level 1    -    level 2    -    level 3    -    level 4    -    level 5    -    level 6
  
   *   R   *  |  *   *   *    |    *   *   *  6
 *   *   *    |    *   *   *  |  *   *   *    5 
   *   *   *  |  *   *   *    |    *   *   *  4
 *   k   *    |    *   *   *  |  *   *   *    3
   *   *   *  |  *   *   *    |    K   *   *  2
 *   *   *    |    *   *   *  |  *   *   *    1
 
 a b c d e f  -  a b c d e f  -  a b c d e f
 
WIN IN FIVE: 
1.Rook 1d6-1d4  King 1c3-1b3
2.Rook 1d4-1c4  King 1b3-1b2
3.Rook 1c4-1c3  King 1b2-1b1
4.Rook 1c3-1c2  King 1b1-1a1
5.Rook 1c2-1b2 STALEMATE

The colorbound piece mentioned in yesterday's comment is also called a HIPPOGRIFF in the 6x6x6 variant Monster 3D Chess. Smith says that it 'leaps to the opposite corner of a 2x2x3 area'.

ATTENTION: the 3-D CHESS FAQ FILE contradicts this Raumschach page with the following information: 'Pawns promote on the back rank of the opponent's end-level. White Pawns promote on the fifth rank of Level E; Black Pawns promote on the first rank of Level A. Dickins notes that in capturing Pawns must move toward their promotion rank. The '3-D' application of this rule means that a White Pawn on Cc3 can capture on Cb4 or Cd4 (like regular chess) or on Db3, Dd3, or Dc4, but not Db2. (Db2 is upward but backwards -- toward White's back rank instead of toward Black's back rank.)'

NOTE: I have a text-file copy of Bruce Balden's two newsgroup posts on October 8, 1990. I believe that he has accidentally reversed the pawn promotion zones and that the rules originally given on this page are also mistaken. Here is one reason for believing so. Everyone agrees that a pawn on level 'C' must either remain on that level or move to an adjacent level: 'D' for a White Pawn or 'B' for a Black Pawn. But this means that a pawn on level 'C' will never promote (according to Bruce Balden). So I accept David Moeser's pawn promotion zones (the starting squares of your opponent's King, Knights, Rooks) as stated in the 3-D CHESS FAQ FILE.

ALSO: my Raumschach Revised preset has the correct alternation of colors on a (slightly wider) Raumschach board. The initial setup and co-ordinate system match the game information page.