[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Game Reviews by MichaelNelson
I have been playing this game with the author by email. I find it highly playable--the moves are much easier to visualize than in Glinski's. The whole concept of the Hero piece is fascinating. By far the best hex game I've played.
I have discoverd the Fool's mate for ximeracak. by having a longer variant of it sprung on me in a game. 1. Wizard d1-c4 X 2. Wizard c4-b5 mate Where X is any move that does not vacate a square adjacent to the General or defend b5. A beautifully treacherous game indeed.
A really great imperfect information variant. With regard to Knight moves, shouldn't non-touring Knight moves be sent directly? If the opponent receives Ra1-c3 from the moderator, he knows it is a touring move from the move itself, not just from having received it from the moderator. So both sides get the same information. Similarly, if the opponent got Bc1-f4 from his opponent, he would recognize it as a non-touring move from the move itself, not just from having received it directly from the opponent. But if all Knight moves go through the moderator and a player receives Nb1-c3, he can't tell whether it is a normal move or a touring move, but the player who sent the move does know. Why should there be a disparity for Knights, when in all other cases equal information is obtained? One of the things I like about this game is that when you obtain information you also give it to the enemy--mkaes you think twice about exploring.
Excellent game concept. I would suggest a rule change. Like many non-Poker games that use Poker hands, the relative values of different hand types get distorted. It is always harder to get three of a kind than a pair, but a straight or flush may or may not be harder to get than three of a kind. So why not use Poker hands with the provision that straights and flushes don't count? A amusing variant might be to play for high hand on turns 1-5, say, and play for low hand on 6-10, etc. For the endgame, if a player doesn't have 5 cards, a missing card ranks low. So in playing for low hand, K-7-5 beats K-7-5-2 (which is logical, since the latter hand wins playing for high). Of course the five turn alternation frequency can be changed as well.
A really good game--the pieces are unusual, but no so unusual that clarity is seriously compromised. The piece set works well together.
What a fine game concept! Some possiblitities: 1. (For equal armies) Randomly choose colors for ranks 1-4 and make corresponding squares opposite colors, thus if a1 is white, a8 is black. The symmetrical board will not favor either side. 2. (For different armies) All squares start out uncolored. Black chooses his army, then white chooses his army and makes the first choice of squares. Players alternate choosing the color of any square on their half of the board--the corresponding square becomes the opposite color as above. The armies are then put on the board and play begins. The board almost certainly will favor one side.
This game deserves an Excellent for the concept, but a small reworking might be nessessary. Some limitation on hogging the pocket seems needed--perhaps the cube variant is some help, but I would suggest that the pocketed piece be immune from capture for only a limited time (2 or 3 turns perhaps, playtesting would be required to determine the limit). After the limit is up, opponent can move to an occupied pocket and capture. I don't think that pawn pocketing variant is a good idea in view of the pocket hogging issue. I would also suggest this variant about flipping. A piece in the pocket is affected by flipping, but a move to or from the pocket doesn't cause filpping.
I like the overall flavor of this game and am looking forward to your revisions. Personally, I don't care for the Coordinator. Pehaps the last pawn should instead promote to a piece its owner has lost (any time after the capture of the next-to-last pawn, counts as a move)--maybe you could extend this to the last two pawns, at the players option--this strengthens the pawn by making capturing them self-defeating beyond a certain point.
A really fine game concept. I can't help but wonder how well Attaturk Lag Chess would play.
I have playtested this game extensively in the course of judging Group A. The rules make it sound like a cute game and it is--but it has surprising depth. I will be giving more detail after the judging is complete, but I really wanted to recommend this fine game.
This is worth an excellent because the concept's elegant simplicity is applicable to virtually any variant (though I wouldn't want to apply it to a game slower than FIDE Chess--Ready Shogi would be interesting but would take forever to play). The ready concept is particlary meritorious in games that are faster and more tactical than FIDE Chess -- slowing them down might give them a strategic/tactical balance like FIDE whiler hasving a very different feel. Examples: Ready Tripunch Chess, Ready Tutti-Fruiti Chess, Ready Progressive Chess. This game also works with thematic Kings, which personally I really prefer (when playable) from an esthetic standpoint.
I really like this game. If a King promotion is desired, perhaps a mW2F2cK allowing more mobitity with the stipulation that the 2-square move couldn't cross check (like castling). This would be worth having as the promoted King could get out of a dangerous position quicker, but most mating positions would still be the same. Let's take a look at promotions: Knight is a two atom piece that promotes to a five atom piece--this is the strongest promotion and a good thing -- the 9x9 board weakens the Kinght vs the Bishop and the stronger promotion rebalances the eqaution. Bishop is a two atom piece that promotes to a four atom piece, as is the Camel; the Rook is a three atom piece that promotes to a five atom piece. These promotions are of appoximately equal value. The Silver (FfW) is worth maybe 1 1/3 or so atoms and promotes to a three atom piece, clearly a a bigger gain than Bishop, Rook, or Camel, but a lessar gain than Knight. The Pawn is harder to evaluate -- it can promote in two steps vs five in FIDE but does not promote to a decisive piece, so FIDE's 2/3 atom is probably a good guess. The Gold (WfF) is worth 1 2/3 atoms, so this is the weakest promotion--but Pawn promotions collectively can add a lot of power.
I am more than a little surprized that this game was not chosen as a finalist in the 84 spaces contest. This is an enjoyable, playable three-handed game and that is a very rare thing. I feel that the innovative shifting alliances rule will revitalize the three-handed genre.
A very pretty game, more playable than absorbtion. It gives me an idea a variant: When one piece captures another, any DNA the captured piece has that the capturer does not have is added to the capturerpiece, but any DNA that the pieces have in common is removed form the capturer: Rook captures Bishop = Queen Rook captures Queen = Bishop Rook captures Amazon = Cardinal Cardinal captures Queen = Marshall Knight captures Knight = nothing! (suicide capture) I wonder how this would play?
A most pleasing blend of Western Chess, Xiangqi and Shogi. The piece set is most entertianing and seems to work well together. The Ogyo is more valuable in this game than it would be in a FIDE-like variant: it has the same horizontal King interdiction power as the Rook, and vertical interdiction isn't needed--the King facing rule provides it.
Roberto, Maxima is a very fine game. With respect to the value of pieces, I wouldn't even attempt to calculate the values in an Ultima Variant--the multiplicity of capture types means that this will be far harder than the value of Chess pieces. But I believe it is doable in principle. The reason I'm interested in the value of Chess pieces is for game design. I want theoretical values so I can have an idea what an unfamiliar piece should be worth. I particularly have an interest in Chess With Different Armies and most especially the 'build your own army' variants. The ideal value won't and cannot be perfect, but it should be a decent starting place--practical values will always be empirical, and will vary by game context. For example, play a lot of Chess using Berolina Pawns--do the Bishop and Rook have the same values relative to each other as in FIDE Chess? Zillions values are about useless for pieces that are even slighty unorthodox--even the Bishop is overvalued compared to the Knight. That's why Zillions programmers have techniques to inflate piece values.
I judged this game in my group during the preliminaries and have I higher opinion of the game than the author does. A refreshing change of pace for the Shogi player. I think the design as submitted is a good one--in fact I voted Ryu Shogi above the eventual winner. The only design decision I would change if it were up to me is to eliminate the rule that a promoted piece reverts to non-promoted if it returns to the first zone--it makes for a stronger defense if you have the option of anchoring your weak pieces with a strong piece. All in all, a fine design.
Antother fine Separate Realms variant. This should be a very close match with the Separate Realms II army, with more raw power but poorer developement. If it's a little too strong, using a Slip Queen instead of the SwR Chancellor should even it up.
Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.
For the game. Falcon Chess is quite playable and the Falcon piece has a charming move that makes for interesting tactics.
For:
1. The inventor's mistaken belief that this is the best chess variant ever invented.
2. Patenting a game whose distinguishing difference from Chess is a lame Bison with an improved movement--an innovation, to be sure, but a small one.
3. His desire to prevent anyone else from using the Falcon in any game (no matter how unlike Falcon Chess).
A most fascinating game concept. A world of interesting variants can be developed from this idea. A large board variant with powerful but short-range pieces comes to mind. Perhaps an 11x11 board with some empty ships in the center.
I like this game concept. I thinks that the two Kings will be playable and it isn't necesary to change the win conditon--a player threatend with the capture of one of his Kings has a move option not present in FIDE Chess--the counter-check. You check one of my Kings and I defend by checking back. You capture my King I capture yours. I would suggest a small rules change--whenever a player captures an enemy King, he must drop it on his next turn. This keeps all four kings in paly and allows the player with a single King some nice chances of equalizing--he has three royal targets vs. his opponents one.
An intriguing idea indeed. The powerful King as the focal point is most interesting--especially the idea of one King checking the other. I suspect that this would play OK on a square board as well. Perhaps a Capablanca variant to bring in some stronger pieces.
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.