Game Reviews by MichaelNelson
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.
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.
Here is the 'Excellent' I thought I would be giving this fine game. Having seen it in action while coding the ZRF, I am quite convinced of the game's quality. The piece set is quite interesting and works well together. The Pawns are unusual but easy to learn to use. The Pawns are quite strong: I'd guess about halfway between a Ferz and a Knight (slightly closer to Ferz). The Forest Ox is the big gun of the board on both offense and defense. The Valkyrie is not quite as strong as the Forest Ox, but is much more powerful than a Queen: the swap move allows if easier developement (can swap with a Pawn in the opening setup) and more ways of escaping trouble, while still having all of a Queen's move and capture power. Rook and Bishop are minor pieces, with the Rook the stronger but with less gap between them than in FIDE Chess, since a Valkyrie swap can get the Bishop to the opposite color. The idea of the King's movement depending on the friendly pieces adjacent to it works quite well here and I'd love to see it used in other variants. Overall, a highly playable and enjoyable game.
I really like this game concept: randomness at a managable level. The Bermuda Triangle imagery is rather enjoyable as well. Some rules clarifications: 1. If a Knight leaps another piece on c3 and c3 is the BCAF, then both the Knight and the piece leaped over disappear? 2. If a piece captures another piece on d5 and d5 is the BCAF, the catured piece does not reappear? The rules as a whole seem to me to indicate that the answer is 'yes' to both questions--I'd like to hear the designer's intent.
The system works quite well. I was able to recreate a page for Decima with my revisions in about 45 minutes. When it is approved, would it be possible for an editor to append the original Decima comments to it and then remove the original Decima page?
A fine design. The strong Pawns and the random variablity of the Knights will produced a a slashing, highly tactical game. Piece values will be skewed--it will virtually always pay to trade Bishop for Knight, not infrequently Rook for Knight will work. A variant worth looking at would be to treat a 5 as 0--this eliminates some of the longest leapers and brings the Wazir and Dababbah-type leapers into the game. A note on dice probabilites: The chance of rolling exactly one 6 on a pair of dice is 10/36 or 5/18, not the 1/18 chance cited on the page.
Let me try restating the rule and Charles can either affirm I am correct, or he might think of yet another way to express the rule if I am wrong. 1. For the purpose of applying the recruitment rules, we pretend that a neutral piece can capture a non-neutral piece. 2. After moving a piece, the player who just moved may recruit any piece which is attacking a piece owned by either White or Black. 3. If rule two applies to multiple pieces, they can all be recruited. 4. Recruitment is applied recursively, so if a neutral piece which is not attacking a White or Black piece is doing so after a recruitment, that piece can be recruited also. Charles, is recruitment mandatory or is it legal for a player not to make a recruitment he is entitled to, either by intent or oversight? By the way, I think this is a fine game concept that deserves more exploration--I expect there are many ways to apply it in different game settings.
An excellent concept game and I think it will be quite playable. Joe's whole series of Shatranj variants are fascinating. The varying power levels of short and medium range pieces with few or no long range pieces make for something quite different. This particular variant with its direction changing moves reminds me of Jetan.
I really like this concept--it's not precisely like anything I've seen, fundamentally simple, yet makes for a very unorthodox game. So far as I know, Graeme isn't channeling me--perhaps I should channel him and get my creative juices flowing again.
Excellent thematic variant! I've not seen the idea of imposing colorboundness on all pieces but removing it by the odd number of files on a cylindrical board, thought I recognize component ideas. A small quibble about promotion: Promotion to a Knight is needed in FIDE Chess, as its moves are not a subset of the Queen's move. In some positions, the Knight can checkmate when the Queen can't even check. This factor does not apply to this game; but there is one case where underpromotion to Rook or Bishop in needed (rather than merely allowed) in FIDE--when promoting to Queen would result in immediate stalemate, but the lesser promotion could force checkmate on a subsequent move. With three combination pieces to choose from, it is much less likely in this variant, but analysis is needed to determine if it is possible: if so, underpromotion must be allowed (if and only if stalemate is a draw).
RPG themed chess has been around at least since Betza's Way of the Knight from 1995. (http://www.chessvariants.org/crossover.dir/wotn.html). Like your idea for earning upgrades, which need to be more liberal than those in Betza's game, since his upgrade ranks increase power more with each upgrade. I can't rate this game "excellent" without playtesting it, but a solid "good" for your idea.
A very well thought and pleasing out blend of a Capablanca's Chess and Shogi. I am curious about the rule against having identical promoted pieces other than promoted Pawns. I consider it a small wart on a otherwise perfect design.
Very nice touchup of the page. You might have mentioned that in problems, there is more than one way to use the cylinder concept. The one here described is chess on a horizontal cylinder, which is the only form that is playable as a game. Other forms have appeared in problems: the vertical cylinder with the first and last ranks connected and the anchor ring both basically both a vertical and horizontal cylinder simultaneously. In the latter case, a1 is connected to both a8 and h1 (and in some version h8 as well, if you really want to go crazy). With rooks and queens instantly attacking each other and the kings in mutual check, we'd need special rules to play this, but a KBB vs K ending on such a board can be analyzed, as well as more complex problems.
Thank you for the clarification. It's obvious in the interactive diagram. Likely on the wording of the rules as given, but capable of being misundertood.
Now I'm certain this is the rule, let me give the game an excellent. The slashing rider moves deep into enemy territory and the defense against such should be a thing of beauty.
42 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.