Comments by JohnLawson

To indicate 'stinky' in notation, how about '*'?  And to indicate being run
over by the Train, how about '_'?

I live a few score miles from PA SGL 312, and I have never seen any critter
(aside from a Hunter) carrying lunch in a brown paper bag.  Sometimes the
brown paper bag contains appropriate liquid refreshment, like Wild
Turkey.

I try to imagine strategies and tactics, and my mind fogs up.  Maybe Wild
Turkey would help.

You could define a handful of basic rule sets that would apply to most
chess variants, differing in such things as the effects of stalemate, or
repetition.  They could then be codified as Rule 0.1, Rule 0.2, etc., but
that rather defeats the whole purpose of a Rule Zero, which I understand to
be the irreducible minimum that most chess variants have in common.

It is also possible to say, 'Rule Zero applies, except for...'

I understand that the Hunter cannot shoot through the Train, and the Deer
cannot leap over the Train, but it is unspecified if the Woodchuck chucks
wood in a high enough arc to clear the Train.

There is already a ZRF for this game on the ZoG site:

http://www.zillions-of-games.com/games/tishai.html

Yes, that's a good enough rule.  My feeling was that it didn't matter. 
Even in a dual stalemate position, with just the Train chugging around, if
there are pieces near the Campfire, the score will be incrementing, at
least until the critters are squished by the Train.

Wouldn't achieving a stalemate position be difficult?  With multiple
occupancy, it is near impossible to blockade lunchvoll critters, and if one
player's critters were all lunchlos, he would be in a very bad position
anyway, and possibly lost.

I'm with Joseph on this: too much work for the payoff.  Think about keeping
it up-to-date; whoever's job that was might have no life in a heavy
contribution week.  Also, listing all the pieces in a game is redundant to
the actual game description.

If it were done, it would be most useful to be identified by move, rather
than name of piece.  This would be a sysiphean labor.  You would have to
create indices based perhaps on funny notation.  The syntax of funny
notation is ambiguous, in that although it can describe movement
precisely, there is more than one way to describe the same movement in
many cases.

Peter -

I just downloaded the ZRF 1.1 dated 8/15, and Black was able to pull three
Elephants from his Pajama before I called it quits.  I had no trouble
running it with Zillions 1.3.1 and Windows 95.  I saved a ZSG file if you
need it.

I did not test for the same situation for the Great Pajama or the Box.

The graphics are a big improvement over the alpha version I got a while
back.

These are the salient points, as I see them:

- There are so many good variants it's hard to even agree on a list to
select from.

- Large variants should be carefully considered because of playing time
considerations.

- Subsequent PBEM tournaments could have different themes.

My proposal:

- Select the variants from the top three finishers of the 38, 39, 40, and
41 square contests.  This gives 12 selections to choose from, and most are
not famous or recognized variants.  Their playablility is proven, they are
relatively small, and should generally be done quickly.

I like the idea of holding a different PBEM contest each year, if there is
interest.  Possibilities include a Large Variant theme (selected from the
Large Variant, 100 square, and 84 square contests); a Betza theme (all
Betza variants); an Aronson theme.  The games selected for these contests
should not overlap.  Other possibilities include a history theme
(Shatranj, Xiangqi, Shogi, Makruk, etc.); a Shogi variant theme (Tori,
Chu, Wa, etc.); etc.

Count me in.

Jean-Louis said:
'10x10 should not be that difficult to get : it is the
regular board for International Checkers, even though people plays
Draughts in US (a much simpler game), with Internet, Int Checkers board
should be easily available.' 

That's what I would think, too, but Ben and I have seached and searched,
and international draughts boards seem to be unobtainable in the US.  We
have no desire to pay trans-Atlantic shipping charges, so if anyone knows
where to find them here, please enlighten us.  Thanks.

The URL is misspelled.  It should be:

http://homepages.ed.ac.uk/rjhare/shogi/dai-shogi/intro.htm

In the original statement about the contest, Glenn Overby said:
'The goal is to get some of the better new or
obscure variants more play and exposure (although there will be room for
more usual games as well).'

Since one of the goals is exposure, I would not like to see XiangQi or
Shogi, but wouldn't mind variants such as Gothic, Omega, or Grand Chess. 
These are widely played, but not played by millions.

In my opinion, machines are out.  One can play against ZoG or other
programs anytime one wants, and it is not satisfying to me.

A revote on a winnowed list makes sense.  It would be OK to add games that
were written in on the first vote.  If the participation of machine
players is disputed, add that to the second round vote.  Finally, consider
playing only games that were voted for by the people who enter the
contest.  If some variant gets 100 votes, but no one who voted for it
enters, throw it out.

For comparison's sake, I quickly calculated some piece densities:

Shogi     49.4%
XiangQi   35.6%
Timur's   50.0%

The density of any 9x9 variant with an extra piece is 44.4%

I'm actually playing an email game of this with David Short, the inventor. 
We're only on move 8, too soon to have an opinion yet.  Mostly I'm trying
to figure out how to develop, and haven't really had to address most of
the special powers.
Note that a subset of this game was entered in the 84-Squares Contest as
Schizophrenic Chess.

No. There is no such move in the standard rules of chess. 
You can only get another Queen by promoting a pawn.

My first question so far involves Ash trees.

Given:
- All the squares comprising a tree lead through a series of adjacent
squares back to the root.
- Ash trees grow by Knight moves.

Then I assume:
- Ash squares that are a Knight's move apart are considered adjacent.

If:
- An Ash tree grows from b1 to c3 to d5, stops, and then grows to b4.

And:
- The Ash square d5 is killed.

Then:
- Ash square b4 dies also, even though it is diagonally adjacent to c3. 
Is this correct?


My second question involves underbrush.

When a deciduous tree is killed or injured, the underbrush squares left
behind are neutral.  Is it true that neutral underbrush has no way to
grow?


My third question involves the Huckleberry.

Once per game, the Huckleberry can expand by leaping onto any friendly
grassland square.  Is this Huckleberry distinct from the original
Huckleberry, resulting in two equal royal pieces?

Ben Good and I actually played four games of Nemoroth. Two ended early due
to oversights, but below you will find the score of the first game we
played.  The notation is a combination of mine and Mousambani's, but
should be readily interpretable.

This game was moderated by Ralph Betza, who let us know right away when we
had done something wrong.  You will not see the illegal moves that had to
be redone.  The major problem with illegal moves involved the Basilisk and
Ghast, and forgetting that their powers affect the owning player as much
as the opposing player.

This is obviously not an example of fine play, and is presented as is.

Nemoroth
Lawson vs. Good
S: 4-28-02
1. Bd3~c2,e2                           Hab6
2. L:Hb2                               Wa5
3. Lb3(Mb2)                            Wb5
4. Lb4                                 L:Hc7
5. L:wb5                               Ld6(Mc7)~
6. Gf3                                 Bf6~e7,g7
7. Gh5                                 Hd6*
8. Ab3                                 Be4~d2,f2*
9. Bc5~b7,d7                           Ag8!,pHg6,Le8,W^,H^*
10. Ae1                                Bd5~e6
11. Ae1!,pHc3,pHe3,pHg3,Lg1            Ha5
12. Ac4                                Hb4
13. Ac4!,La6,Bc6(~b8,d8),Be6,pHc2,Ha4  Bd4*
14. Bb5*~a4,c4                         Be2
15. Ad2                                Bd3
16. Gf3                                Bc1~d2*
17. Gd1

Ben's comment:
After 16...Be1~d2, 17.Gd1 still wins the game.  I can play 17...Bf2 which
in fact is forced), but the B will still be compelled on move 18 and will
have no moves left.


    a      b      c      d      e      f      g      h
+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
|      |  pa  |      |  pg  |   l  |      |  a   |      | 8
|      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
|      |  ph  |   m  |  ph  |  ph  |      |      |      | 7
|      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
| L w  |      |      |  pl  |   ph |      | ph   |      | 6
|      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
|      |  B   |      |      |      |      |      |      | 5
|      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
|  ph  |      |  pA  |      |      |  pH  |      |      | 4
|      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
|      |      |      |      |      |      |  pH  |      | 3
|      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|      | M    |      |      |      |      |      |      |
|  H   |pH pH |      |  pA  |      |      |  H   |  H   | 2
|      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+
|      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
|  W   |      |  B   |  G   |      |      |  L   |  W   | 1
|      |      |      |      |      |      |      |      |
+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+------+

It was suggessted on the Bishop Conversion Rule page that it could be used
with Modern Chess.

http://www.chessvariants.com/varvar.dir/bcr.html

I dug out my Modern Chess set because I remembered that this issue had
been addressed in the rules. According to the Mathematical Thesis of
Modern Chess, by Gabriel Vicente Maura, (2nd revised edition, 1974, page
34 note), once during a game a player may do 'the adjustment of the
Bishop'. This move allows the player to interchange the positions of
either Bishop and the adjacent Knight. Like castling, neither piece may
have moved, and the action counts as a move. This may be done only once
per game, and both players have to agree to allow this move before the
start of the game. This move is not allowed by the World Federation of
Modern Chess, but the author recommends familiarizing oneself with playing
with Bishops on different colors. This 50-page booklet also contains a
justification of the design of Modern Chess based on mobility
calculations, and two photographs of Mr. Maura with his chess set.

gnohmon writes:
Is it clear that growing from a1 to a7 means occupying a2 through a6 as
well? 

I think so.  I also interpret 'momentum' to mean, if you grow your Pine
Tree two squares on the NW diagonal, it will continue to grow at the rate
of two squares per turn until it autostops, or is stopped, and that every
square on that diagonal will be Pine Tree squares between the origin and
final squares.  That is, for a Pine Tree on a1, growing to c3 means b2 is
also a Pine Tree square.  The second turn it grows to e5 and d4 is also a
Pine Tree square.  The third turn it grows to g7 and f6 is also a Pine
Tree square.  The fourth turn, it can no longer continue moving two
squares per turn, and so autostops.

Yes.  I actually own them all, purchased in 1985 and 1986 as a wedding
present to myself when the pound was $1.08.  (And my wife did *not* get an
annulment!)

There will be longer and longer waits between them, as they take longer
and longer to set up as they get larger.  Tai Shogi really does take two
hours to set up, if you're a novice (and who isn't?)

LCC wrote:
'But still, I liked the background music of the article.'
FYI, it's the third movement of Beethoven's 'Moonlight Sonata'.

There have been so many points made here I cannot comment on them all, but
I will mention some that have drawn my attention.

FYI, I have also volunteered to be a judge.  Am I to be classified as a
newcomer or a veteran?  It seems the proposed critia are based mainly on
contributions to the CVP.  I am not blessed with that sort of creativity,
but I have been a regular visitor and commentor for five years, and I have
been interested in chess variants for 40 years.  Furthermore, I seem to be
of approximately average playing strength among variantists.

There are two good ideas that are mutually exclusive.  One is Fergus's
idea that the top five games advance in each of the three pools of eleven.
 The other is Mark's suggestion that the pools are too large, and six or
seven games per pool would be better.  Perhaps the protocol should be left
to Hans in this case, because it depends on how many judges are
available.

When it comes to dividing up the games, there are several ideas.  I like
David's idea of balancing out the pools by format of game.  I think it is
a good idea to separate both contributions by the same person into
different pools.  Of course any contributor who also judges should not be
allowed to judge their own game.  I emphatically think it is NOT a good
idea to segregate the games designed by 'novices' and 'veterans'.  It
seems clear to me that a pool of 'veteran's' games would be more
competitive than a pool of 'novices's' games, and would result in skewed
first round results.

As a judge, I would expect some guidance on the criteria I would be using
to rate.  I expect to play, as David suggested, at least two of each game
(ideally more, if the nature of the game was eluding me).  I assume I
would play with the other judges of my pool, or with the inventor, if he
makes himself available as David has.  As the prospect of playing 22 large
and complex variant games simultaneously is daunting, I am already
beginning to extricate myself from my other gaming activities to make
time.

Well, it's not exactly on this site, but....
http://www.chessvariants.com/link2.dir/chessplusdeck.html

I'm just testing making posts as a member.

Regarding chess sets for variants, there are also styles other than
Staunton that could be combined with a Staunton set, if you don't mind
some stylistic inconsistency.  Possibilities include Bauhaus and Art Deco
styles, illustrated here:

http://chessandmore.com/r617p.htm

http://chessandmore.com/p2220p.html

Echoing Ben, Henk van Haeringen's wooden Exchess sets are also nice, go
nicely with medium quality boxwood and ebonized boxwood Staunton sets, and
the prices are fair for the quality.  The shipping cost from the
Netherlands, however...

Look at:

http://www.schoenberg.at/6_archiv/designs/designs_chess_e.htm

http://www.usc.edu/isd/archives/schoenberg/painting/gamehtms/noritter10.htm

In the original concept of the Pizza Kings, the Meatball (Queen) was a
WFDAN.  This was, in practice, too strong, and I weakened it to a WFDAfN,
which seemed to be just right for that army.  (This was one of those cases
where the theme had to yield.)
Also, I've lately been playing Exchess, which includes a piece (Veteran)
whose movement is K+N.  On an 8x8 board, I find it to be almost as useful
as a major piece (Q, B+N, or R+N), and if you can get it across the board,
it is excellent at supporting threats by the more long-range pieces.  I
would expect a Pancake to be similar in strength.
Since we now have the Bakery Bombers, as well as the Pizza Kings as CWDA
experimental armies, maybe players' appetites have been whetted for the
other armies I suggested, the Beer Batterers and the Avenging Appetizers.

While it is convenient to have universally understood conventional names
for common variant pieces, it will always be true that variant designers
will want to use ad hoc names that fit the theme of their variant.

Additionally, there *are* conventional names for the most usual
first-order atomic moves (Ferz, Wazir, Alfil, Dababbah, Knight, Camel) and
second-order moves (Rook, Bishop, Queen, King) built from them.  Add the
nearly universally understood use of 'rider' and 'leaper', and it is easy
to describe most variant pieces.

I am in agreement with Mike Nelson in supporting the universal use of
Ralph Betza's funny notation in move descriptions, and I further believe
that an effort to standardize the syntax of funny notation would be
worthwhile.  Once the syntax is consistent, so that a given move can be
validly descibed in ony one way, the Piececlopedia could be upgraded to a
database, where, e.g., one could enter a query for 'ADF' (but not 'AFD' or
'FAD') and get a list of all the names of pieces with that move and what
variants they are used in.  This seems like an enormous labor, but there
is now so much material on the CVP that no one can be familiar with it
all, and this will aid designers in discovering if their new variant has
been anticipated by someone else.

There are more current developments, like 'zB' for Crooked Bishop.  I try
to find them and add them here.

How would you code a piece from Henk van Haeringen's Exchess called the
Herald?  It is normally a straight-forward FA in Funny Notation, but on
its owner's first rank it becomes FAsW.  Another challenging example would
be the Ultima ruleset where the range of a piece varies with the rank it
stands on.

Regarding the Moo-rider, I am not clear on one thing: is it optionally
either a Mao-rider or Moa-rider on any given turn, or do you get to choose
either the moa-path or mao-path between each touch-down point on a single
move?

I get the image of a cow on a motorcycle.

Hans,

I noted an email in the editors' mailbox from George Duke volumteering to
judge Group C.  If he could judge Group A, or Mike Nelson move to Group A,
that would give us three judges for each group.  That would be great.

Completing the first round by March 31st seems a little optimistic, but
might be possible with dedicated judges.

Then, we need to decide who judges the final pool.

The voting has been very close all along.  How will you deal with a
three-way tie, if it occurs?

Isn't this kind of like Peter's Chess with Cyclical Armies?
http://www.chessvariants.com/other.dir/cyclical-armies.html
And I like the idea of polypiece Ultima or Rococo.  How about Polypiece
Optima?  Or Nemoroth?

I had noticed the same, and commented on it.  See the response from the
inventor here:

http://www.chessvariants.com/index/listcomments.php?itemid=Invasion

If you mean, 'Can King plus Knight checkmate a lone King?', the answer is
no.  The minimum force needed to checkmate a lone King is a Knight and a
Bishop, and it is difficult.  A mate position can be set up with just two
Knights, but the lone king cannot be forced into it.  Three Knights or two
Bishops can also mate a lone King.  
If there are Pawns on the board, then the position is very important,
since the goal will be to promote a Pawn first.

Finally inclination and opportunity coincided and I tracked down a link for
Lojban orthography:
http://www.tlg.uci.edu/~opoudjis/lojbanbrochure/brochure/phonol.html#idxphonology
Incidentally, Lojban is related to Loglan.
The upshot is, if you pronounce ximeracak. with the 'x' as the 'ch'
sound in the Scottish 'loch', 'c' as the English digraph 'ch', and
the 'i' as an English 'long e', and use natural English pronunciation
for the rest, you will be close.  Finish up by ending the 'k' sound with
a glottal stop (like the 'tt' in Brooklynese 'bottle') instead of the
normal English aspiration.  Then remember to stress the next-to-last 
syllable, and you've got it.  Think 'khee-mer-RAH-chahk'.

I have checked the books in my library for values.

Terence Donelly, 'Hsiang Ch'i, The Chinese Game of Chess', and Dennis
Leventhal, 'The Chess of China', do not bring up the topic at all.

Sam Sloan, 'Chinese Chess for Beginners', discusses how a table of
values such as is used in FIDE chess is invalid.

H. T. Lau, 'Chinese Chess', gives:
  9    Rook
  4.5  Cannon
  4    Knight
  2    Counsellor
  2    Minister
  2    Pawn (after crossing river)
  1    Pawn (before crossing river)

David Li, 'First Syllabus on Xiangqi', has an eight-page chapter with
six charts, which may be summarized:

  Opening  Midgame  Endgame
   10       10       10      Chariot
    4.5      4.5      4      Cannon
    1        1        1      Cannon, premium when paired
    4        4.5      5      Horse
    1        1        1      Horse, premium when paired
    2.5      2.5      2.5    Advisor
    2.5      2.5      2.5    Elephant
    -        2        2      River-crossed Pawn
    -        -        1.5    Old Pawn (on last rank)
    2        2        2      Center Pawn
     .75      .75      .75   Other Pawns

There it is, for what it's worth.

'Both Kings were on opposite sides of board...'
I'm not a shogi player, but isn't that situation called 'jishogi' or
'impasse'? It is recognized that the game cannot end normally and the
winner is determined by awarding points for material.  I think it is also
referred to as 'entering kings'.

Gavin,

Just 'sent in'.  The time taken to post a game is imponderable, and
depends on what format the entry is submitted in, and the time the editors
have available.

The first thing I see right off that I would change is the = sign.  I think
the use of a > sign would more clearly imply 'becoming'.  So fnWfcF=*
would be fnWfcF>*.
Also, although you didn't state it, I infer the - for promotion to a
previously captured piece means from the owner's original array.

There was a discussion thread on this.  See:
http://www.chessvariants.com/index/listcomments.php?subjectid=Maorider

Alternatives with a 4x8 or 8x4 board size on these pages are:

http://www.chessvariants.com/small.dir/limitingchess.html
http://www.chessvariants.com/small.dir/chipps.html
http://www.chessvariants.com/small.dir/halfchess.html
http://www.chessvariants.com/small.dir/killerchess.html

But the one fitting your comment best is:

http://www.chessvariants.com/small.dir/demi.html

I looked it up on Georg Dunkel's site,
http://www.kolumbus.fi/geodun/shogi.htm , 
and he gives the rule as: 
'All pieces move in the same way as in Shogi (except that they do not
promote in the same way.)'

So, as long as we're on the topic of mutators, how about applying this
concept to Mulligan Stew Chess?  We could have '42-Square Indirect
Extrinsic Anti-relay Tutti-Fruiti Swapping-Mage Teleporting-Assassin
Dual-Color-Bound-King Limited-Double-Move Leaping-Pawn Chess'.  Anybody
for a kriegspiel version?