[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Game Reviews by JianyingJi
Since white has slight opening advantage, it would be more equitable if the game start with black refusing one move from white and then white move and refuse black then game continues as described ...
Really well designed and explained large variant without the clutter that often afflict them
excellent game, one of the illustration has the wrong coloring for the squares. The second set in the middle of the page, board2 should have the opposing coloring
very interesting and provocative. Though a more extended write up is welcome
I was thinking along these lines sometimes ago, but my ideas never geled into a playable game. So it very nice to see some incarnation of it. Absolutely cool!
interesting variant, I wonder if giving king a knight's move would make the king too hard to capture. With all those combo pieces, it seems only fair to give the king a bit more movements too.
This list is quite comprehensive, and quite impressive. Which makes it doubly strange that the odds chess has not persisted in any serious way in chess clubs today, especially organizations such as FIDE to determine the rating, handicap correspondence.
Cool! one thing I find a bit aethetically off is that linking is not compulsary in that player could ignoire linking completely and play normal chess. So to satisfy my twisted aesthetics I would recommend following changes as a sub-variant: 0. Twinkie Danger Chess rule apply unless contradicted below. 1. White start on board 0 and black start on board 1 2. King remain on the board they started In this sub-variant no progress can be made without linking, so linking becomes crucial way to mobilize your forces.
Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.
amazing! just saw this, seems an elegant solution fora variant on a torus. Gilman's comment is also out standing, and I wonder if there is more info on that variant as well.
similar to potential chess but with the addition of cycling. As to castling it probably goes something like: castling with an undefined piece reduces it to rook, if there is already two rooks, then castling cannot be done.
Sounds like a very playable stacking variant. I especially like the moving as the topmost piece.
Very interesting game, and fairly modest too, which I like. I have a few quick observations: I. a-file and 8th rank is safe from the angels neither angel can jump over them due to the edge on the left side. II. By switching the demon and angel on the h-file with the knight on the i-file their coverage is expanded so only the 8th rank becomes safe from angel-fire, and the demons cover the whole board. Aethetically, you gain a more symmetric setup. Moreover, with the white side holding the marginally weaker angels, the first player advantage is probably canceled. III. to make both side even more equal, you might consider making it 7 or 9 ranks (9 being my preference, a hint of dante) instead of 8, this way there will be no safe zone from angel-fire IV. to make a greater hommage to your inspiration you might make the game byzantine by joining the left and right sides of the board. hopefully you find my comment interesting and perhaps useful...
A great game with a very fresh idea! I have a small point: Having the second player mirror the first player's piece layout while allowing both to layout thie terrain (the black squares) separately give the first player a unequal advantage. Since the first player can always layout the pieces to make it difficult for the opponent. The opponent would be forced to start off at a disadvantage. The simple solution is to allow the players to lay out pieces, the way terrain is laid out, separately. No need to enforce symmetry.
The lack of innovation of this commercial game suprises, one would have thought that they do their due diligence and seek out something more innovative, as very much on displayed here. Most of the games on these pages easily out flanks games such as this. Here's the challenge: What is the most minimal change of the rules that one can propose that would make this game much more innovative? Suggestions?
A really cool game with a good and innovative mechanics.
Gary, you have an amazing approach to designing chess variants. Having gone back and looked at some of your past variants that I missed, I see they all have a quite coherent approach. That approach is take stadard chess, add a single new mechanics and redeign all aspect around that mechanics so its brilliance shines. All your game seems very polished, and any of them is better than what is commercially available.
For question 5, couldn't the answer be that the white rook just moved from a dark square to a light square, say from d3 to c3? The result would be the same, the checking of the black king.
The 'Y' piece! Finally a game that makes it the theme! I was thinking about it a long time, but got distracted, so I'm very glad some one put it in play as a central theme.
very sensible. I like the odd rows between pawns, this has the effect of reducing first player advantage, since if first player presses its advantage the second player gets one tempo more to answer, where as with even rows between pawns the parity is such that first player gets the tempo. The no draws rule needs more clarification, since there are many position in chess that a resolution is either impossible or too far in the future. Then there's stalemate. Each of these three cases has to be addressed to have the game become drawless.
Horray for the unique mechanism! (well some joe joyce's large variants has enabling pieces that allow other pieces to move or capture, but still that is very different from this variant) As for computer play, it does alter drastically the evaluation function, and depending on the subtlety and complexity of the function, the play will differ widely in quality. It certainly would spread it out some.
I have followed the development of spartan chess in the comments, and I must say I am deeply impressed, especially by the collaboration of H.G.Muller and Steven Streetman. The use of applied computational variantology (to coin a phrase) is a tour-de-force. This is how computers should be used in this field that we are in. I see a bright future in this approach. I also look forward to a bright future for spartan chess!
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.