Game Reviews by GregoryStrong

This is, indeed, a very interesting game! I did just notice, however, another game with this name on George Jelliss' A Guide to Variant Chess site. The site indicates that this game was published in Variant Chess in 1991. I don't know if this is a problem or not, but I thought I would point it out.

Please understand, though, that I do not mean to diminish the creativity of this game in any way. The Jester is a particularly good innovation, and helps to diminish the value of opening books in a big way!

I would like to second David's comments, particularly regarding the pawn promotion. You have created a new piece combining all moves which can only be attained by pawn promotion; I see little reason to offer under-promotion. You already have to have an Amazon piece in the set, so you shouldn't need the option to promote to weaker pieces for that reason. Also, the more promotion options you allow, the slower computer programs which play the game become. The more promotion options there are, the more legal moves there are, and the larger the search tree becomes.

I do think this game looks interesting, though. I like the starting array, especially the symmetry. I'll post a Game Courier invitation shortly, and give it a try...

I haven't given a game a 'poor' rating yet, but I really can't give
this game anything else.  The first thing I think when I look at this is
'Isn't there ANYTHING about the game of Chess that was ok as-is?'  He
changed the number of files, the number of ranks; changed the move of the
Rook, the Bishop, the Pawns (no enpassant) ...  He re-arranged the pawns! 
He doubled the number of Queens!!!  And then there's the barrier pawn,
which might make center-play more interesting, but boy is it nothing like
a 'normal' Chess piece.  And no resigning?!?  I won't even comment on
that one.

On the up-side, yes, he did add symmetry, but I just can't see giving it
a 'good' rating.  It just looks like an extreme over-reach that wasn't
all that well thought-out.  Of course, I must admit that I haven't played
it (yet) ...  It is possible that my opinion would improve.

I had not noticed this page until George Duke's recent post.  I like the
alterations made here (at least in the first game.)  I will add it to
ChessV shortly, because it already supports Courier Chess, and this is an
easy addition.

I also like the 12x8 board, and suspect that it may be a great board for
CVs that has not been adequately explored.

As for the second game, I have not played a game with a crooked bishop, so
I can't speak to playability.  I can say, though, that I am not sure at
all how to program such a piece into ChessV in any 'good' way.  For what
I mean by good ways vs. bad ways, I will need to get into some detail about
ChessV architecture.  I will start this (complex) discussion on the ChessV
thread sometime in the future.

This is a very interesting game. I look forward to playing it in GCT #2.

Below is a list of mobility values for all the pieces in Pocket Mutation, as well as a few Chess-With-Different-Armies pieces at the bottom for comparison. The 'average mobility' column is a Betza Mobility Calculation with a magic number of 0.7. This is probably the best estimation of the value of the piece. The second column is the average number of checks this piece delivers on an empty board without being counter-attacked. The third column is the average number of different 'directions' in which this piece attacks. The fourth column is the average number of squares attacked on an empty board.

Very nice! The author has done an excellent job of defining a Fischer randomization system for Capablanca's Chess (actually this piece mix goes back to the 1600s with D. Pietro Carrera -- see Carrera's Chess.) It is obvious to me that the design has been carefully considered from both a game-designer's perspective and a software developer's perspective.

I'm not sure I like the idea of renaming the pieces, though. There are already too many different names for these pieces, and I think the goal should be to standardize the names, and I believe Capablanca's names of Archbishop and Chancellor are probably the best choices.

Looking back, I noticed that I had not rated this game, so I now correct
this oversight with an 'Excellent' rating for my personal favorite
variant.

I hope that Ralph re-emerges soon, because I am concerned that his
inventions might become overlooked without his continued input.  But I
will continue to do what I can to promote CWDA, though, such as voting for
it's inclusion in Game Courier tournaments, and providing the best
possible CWDA support to ChessV, for analysis of different army match-ups.
 Sometime in the not-too-distant future I will provide a great deal of
information here on what I have learned from computer analysis of the
major CWDA armies.

Regarding the Pawn promotion rule:  I would recommend a change to this
rule.  The current rule says a pawn may promote to any piece in either
army at the start of the game.  Here's the problem:  What about the
match-up of Nutty Knights vs. Nutty Knights?  Since no piece in that
entire army may move backward faster than one square at a time, even if a
pawn promotes to a (very powerful) Colonel, it still probably can't move
back into the frey quickly enough, seriously decreasing the value of pawn
promotion.  I would suggest the alternate rule:  A pawn may promote to any
piece (other than Pawn or King) in the player's army at the start of the
game, or in the standard Orthodox Chess army (Fabulous FIDEs).  This
always provides the option of promotion to Queen.

Very interesting!

Half-golem capturing adjacent half-golem:  It says 'If a piece other than
a Golem captures a Golem, the capturing piece is removed from play, and the
Golem is replaced by a Half-Golem of the same ownership as the Golem.' 
But it also says 'A Golem or Half-Golem may always capture an adjacent
Golem or Half-Golem.'

What happens here?  And likewise, if a half-golem captures an adjacent
full-golem, is the capturing piece also removed?

I really like this.  It adds an element of chance that so many other board
games have, but the probability of disappearance is low enough that you
can still play a game without worrying about it too much...  It's Chess
with a little extra element of risk.  Also, having the Bermuda Chess Angle
in the center of the board is nice, because it helps to equalize the value
of the squares.  The squares around the perimeter, which are normally
weaker, now have the added advantage of safety.

The number 10 is not all that prominent, and as a contest entry, that is a
slight weakness, but as a game overall I still rate it 'excellent.'

P.S.  I am taking Statistics for Engineers this semester, so that may be
coloring my view of the game a little.

Very nice!  You were able to submit an update with the user-submission
system, and the editors had no problem moving the existing comments to the
new page.  It is indeed a new age at the CVP!

The idea of Decima is very nice.  The number 10 is included in an
interesting way, via the point values, and these values also have a very
nice way of helping to level the value of the pieces.  What the material
value of the pieces should be relative to the pawn would be very difficult
to determine.  But, this helps to add interest to the game ...

Wow!  It's hard to say anything about this game but 'Wow!'  
The sheer scale of it has an audacity and boldness that must be respected.
 This game will not be playable by computers until quantum computers become
a reality, and probably not by humans until we've had a few thousand more
years of evolution.  Still, this page made me laugh a great deal, and the
extensive use of the number ten cannot be denied!

An excellent and very enjoyable game!

A couple of questions, though.  Addendum item #2; I thought I understood
what was being said here, until the sentence 'Because of this rule, of
course, a King cannot do a 'move/relocate' function with the other
King.'  Why is this?  If King #1 is adjacent to a Valkyrie, can it not
make a move/relocate move like a Valkyrie?  And if the other King is
in-line, why can it not move/relocate that King?

Also, I assume that the Forest Ox cannot use it's optional riffle capture
to capture a friendly piece.  Correct?

Thanks!

Yes, this game definitely deserves the rating of 'excellent.'  I am in
the middle of my second game against Fergus, and I've seen enough to be
confident in my assessment.  I love Marseillais Chess, but I think that
this game is a significant improvement.  Although many of the restrictions
added in this game are related to facilitating computer play, I think the
rules added are an improvement even for human play.

Marseillais Chess has a couple of problems, in my opinion.  For one thing,
I think the game suffers from the fact that although the double-move aspect
makes the game sharp and violent, you still have to cower well behind the
enemies' pawn line... Because the same pawn can move twice, including a
double-move on the first move, you have to hide all your pieces on your
first three ranks; otherwise you sacrifice them to enemy pawns which are
extremely viscious, especially if they have not moved and thus are
elegible for an initial double-step move.  Also, the double-move aspect
makes riffle capture possible, and thus makes the game very aggressive and
unstable... which I like, in general, but you still have to run and hide so
a mere pawn doesn't run you down.

Also, when the pawns start advancing across the board, and the game begins
in earnest, the ability of any piece to move twice, and thus to conduct a
riffle-capture, leads to a highly tactical game wherein the material drops
like crazy, minimizing the strategy ...

Extra-Move Chess prevents the same piece from moving twice, and eliminates
the possibility for two captures on the same turn.  I believe that these
restrictions make for a more strategical game, while maintaining the speed
and excitement of other double-move variants.  I highly recommend this
game!

Many people have denied that this is a joke.  Several people have claimed
to be active players, and have further claimed that games and tournaments
of it have been played on various forums (such as Brainking.)  So I'm not
convinced that it is purely a joke (although much of the text is obviously
intended to be fictional and funny.)  But, despite the fact that we have
pages and pages of text describing this game, no rule set is actually
given.

So, I think one of two things needs to happen.  If it is, in fact, a real
game, then the actual rules need to be posted here, in addition to all the
nonsense.  Or, these pages should be removed, as they have no place here. 


If it is a joke that the authors deliberately deny is a joke, for the
purpose of laughing at anyone who is fooled, than that is cruel and a
clear abuse of the webspace that the editors of this site generously
provide largely at their own expense.

Or, if it is not a joke, but the rules are 'top secret' then it should
also be removed.  The message 'I know something that you don't know, and
I'm not going to tell you' is also not an appropriate use of the bandwith
that is being paid for by others.

When I looked at this game, I was very pleased by the appearance of the
pieces, and, although I, like Fergus, find Staunton pieces easier to use,
on account of their familiarity, I think I will purchase a Dragon Chess
set anyway, just to have the pieces at my disposal to facilitate making
physical representations of other Chess variants that I do enjoy.

I was not particularly impressed by the game itself, however.  Unlike
Jianying, however, I do not think it needs to be a radical deviation to be
good or to be successful.  Gothic Chess is no radical deviation and yet it
seems plenty popular, as CVs go.  And I'm not sure that throwing out the
opening book, while that is of concern to more experienced players like
us, even entered into their thinking.  My criticism of the game is more
related to the specific implementation.  The main 10x10 board... ok, good,
clearly that board has been tested in many successful games such as Grand
Chess.  But why add the extra battlefields on the side?  It is not as
though the setup or rules encourages any pieces to move there; I see them
remaining largely unused.  And a pawn would not want to go there (only
possible by capture) as it would then have to capture again to get out of
there, which it would have to do in order to promote.  But, conversely,
the fact that a pawn would not want to go there is not enough incentive
for other pieces to go there.  You would still move a pawn into such an
area in order to capture a piece, even if it means giving up on promoting
that pawn.  The board doesn't seem to be well thought-out.

It also looks like the text of the rules wasn't thought out at all.  For
example, they list material values for the pieces, but they left the
values of the Chess pieces as-is, and added the Dragon in at a value of 4
pawns.  For starters, on such a large board, the Bishop and Knight are
obviously not of the same value any more.  Beyond that, all the standard
chess pieces are valued incorrectly.  Should be more like: pawn=1,
knight=2.5, bishop=4, dragon=5, rook=6, queen=10-12.

But I'll probably still buy a set just for the pieces.  I wish I had
acquired an Omega Chess set before they all ran out.  Anyone have an Omega
set they want to sell?!?