Comments by MichaelNelson
I was able to sign in using Microsoft Edge with blanet permission to accept all cookie anywhere (the default for Edge).
Definitely reverse the values of bishop and rook. I suppose the prohibtion on splitting the last king even to form another king is to limit the king's mobity, else last king facing capture could move as a split off a bishop and fuse with a rook all the way accross the board. I wonder if this prohibition is needed for playabilty. My guess is that the case where my king is captured, I capute the enemy king, but opponent can't form a new king on the next turn would be a draw. I think I would prefer the simpler rule "a player who has no king at the start of his turn loses."
Thanks, H. G. I will try promoting only the Cardinal and related pieces by one class, returning the SuperBishop to class 3, and adding the SuperKnight to class 4. Hopefully, its value is close enough to the SuperRook to be playable--exactness is not required, just as long as it is a fair amount closer in value to the SuperRook than to the Cardinal, Chancellor, or Queen. It is an important design goal of mine to have more than one piece in every value class except 1 and 8 (and I wouldn't object to additional pieces in these classes, if any come to mind). Any addition piece suggestions are welcome if there are good numbers available about their values.
I am playtesting the following changes to the Pocket Mutation Chess value classes: Class 1: Pawn Class 2: Knight, Bishop Class 3: Rook, Nightrider Class 4: SuperRook, SuperBishop* Class 5: Queen, Chancellor, Cardinal* Class 6: SuperChancellor, ChancellorRider, SuperCardinal*, CardinalRider* Class 7: Amazon, SuperChancellorider, SuperCardinalRider* class 8: AmazonRider Those pieces marked with * have been move up one class. I have been motivated by H. G. Muller's research which shows a higher value for the Cardinal than Betza's Atomic Theory would predict--it is essentially equal to a Chancellor or Queen, rather that about halfway between a Chancellor and a Rook as Betza suggested. I am contemplating adding a SuperKnight (KN, class 4?) and maybe a SuperNightrider (KNN, class 6?). Any thoughts?
The rules as given make the answer to the first question clear: checkmate ends the game immediately (if the checkmating move is legal) per the FIDE rules which apply to this game unless otherwise stated; so what would have happened after is irrelevant. Win for the checkmating player. The second is unclear--an already stoned piece ignores the effect of being zapped, but does stoning undo the effect of a wand which the piece had been zapped with on a previous turn? This is not limited to the sickness case. For example, does stoning a pacifist piece allow it to resume capturing after the stoning wears off? I would answer no to the second question, but am far less sure than in the firs question that my understanding of Ralph Betza's intent is correct. If my interpretation is correct, a stoned King will die at the appointed time, as it is now immune to a wand of healing--so the only recourse available to the king's owner is to checkmate, stalemate, or create a second king before the king dies.
There is an error in the initial setup in this preset (taking Betza's page as correct): exchange the k-file bishop with the l-file piece to get the setup Ralph intended.
A question for you, H. G.: is there a document somewhere describing your latest research into the value of chess pieces? The Excellent is both for Fairy-Max itself, and for your work on Chess engines and piece value.
Yes, in the position cited, either of the the Cannon Pawns on a2 and e2 can act as spotters for Archer on c1 shoots Pushme-Pullyu on c3. No other friendly pieces can spot in this position. Suggestions of how to reword the rule to make this clearer are in order--as well as any other rewording: I plan to revise this page for clarity (no change in substance). Perhaps a general statement before the specific piece description such as "All pieces act on orthogonal or diagonal lines in any direction (though in some cases, limited by distance)." I'm also thinking it might make the capture rule clearer to phrase it in terms of all shots require a spotter, but if close enough, the Archer can spot for itself. Editors, which would be easier for you: to review submissions for revised pages, or to grant me editing rights to my own game pages--I am comfortable with either.
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.
I think Joe Joyce's post on "male predominance at chess" make more sense than the study itself. The explanation of gender differences in Chess may be simpler yet. **On average**, men are more likely than women to purse activities that have no social utility apart from the pleasure of doing that activity. Chess is in that category (as indeed are checkers, card games, etc.) No insult intended--I am interested in Chess variants for my own pleasure and no other reason and feel no need to apologize to anyone for that fact, and neither judge nor wish to judge anyone else for doing the same. I have considered that Chess can teach critical thinking, strategic planning, etc. Yes it can, but so can a myriad of non-game things useful in themselves apart from teaching. "Male predominance at chess" is a current fact of reality. I suspect there are males who believe this has 1) always been true, 2) always will be true, and 3) SHOULD be true. A significant number of such males will then reason by analogy about "male predominance in science", etc. I won't touch of the idea of a female human being who argues for "male predominance ...", the very idea terrifies me.
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).
Assuming that the laws of check follow FIDE rules (which is a reasonable assumption for a variant player by orthodox chess masters) Checking both Kings simultaneously is quite possible by discovery or fork, it is not automatically mate in the case of the fork, as the checking piece is potentially capturable, but cannot be answered by interposition or King move. Discovered check whereby each King ends up checked by a different piece is checkmate: there is no possible way to answer both checks. A line piece can also check by pinning one King to the other, for example Kings on a1 and c1, b1 and d1 vacant, enemy Rook moves to e1. This can be answered by capturing the Rook or interposing on d1 (not b1).
I've been corresponding with Matteo about programming this most interesting game, but I thought I would share with the Zillions programmers among the CV community. I have solved the first problem: rather than using last-to? (which would allow the movement of the same piece on the first and third moves of a turn) I set a has-moved attribute for the piece whenever it moves, and verify that this attribute is clear before allowing the move. After each turn (three moves), I have a random player scan the board and clear all has-moved attributes, so that all pieces can move freely on the next turn. This technique will work for any number of multiple moves. The drops restriction will require a board scan to find the friendly King.
Matteo, I didn't take the fact that Black chooses his arrangement after White is finished with his into account. My error in not noticing this. In this case, if any balancing is needed, limiting White to two moves on the first turn should be quite sufficient. I think my rule is about right for a triple move game with a) fixed setup b) random setup or c) players choose setup by placing one piece at a time in turns.
Congratulations on a fine first effort, Matteo! The triple move idea is untried, so far as I know, and will need play testing to see if it makes the game too explosive. If that is the case, this game should still keep most of its flavor as a double move variant. (Hope triple move works out, I really like that.) In any case, a balance rule to reduce the first move advantage is in order. For a double move game, the rule is well known--White may make only one move on the first turn. I propose a triple move analog to that rule: On the first turn, White makes one move. On the first turn, Black makes one or two moves. On the second turn, White makes one or two moves. On subsequent turns, the player on move makes one, two, or three moves.
Mr. Zanotelli raises an interesting point. His is indeed a possible way to apply the FIDE Pawn rules to the changed circumstances of this game. But Peter Aronson's way is equally valid. In the case of FIDE Chess, they are equivalent statements of the same rule, as a Pawn cannot make its first move from any place other than the second rank, and a Pawn on the second rank cannot have moved previously--neither of which conditions apply to the Pawn moves of other pieces in this game.
IMHO, Muller's 7 criteria look quite useful for estimating how chess-like a game is--a continuum, rather than a binary is/isn't categorization. They would provide a conceptual framework for observations such as (to intentionally cite an extreme example) Capablanca's Chess is more chess-like than the Game of Nemeroth. Where the line is between chess variant and non-chess games cannot and indeed need not be determined exactly. The question is, is a given game chess-like enough for it to be useful to consider the game a chess variant--can a useful number of Chess concepts be helpful in playing and analyzing the game? But drawing lines can be fun and useful if it isn't absolutized. Approached in a spirit of 'reasonable people can disagree', everyone should be free to chime in. As a starting point for looking at some edge cases, I offer my own game Wizards' War for consideration: 1. It has royal pieces, though capturing them is not the only method of victory. 2. It is entirely pawnless (in the Muller sense--many games are pawnless in the sense of 'this game has no piece that moves like an FIDE pawn'). So is it a chess variant or not and why? Bonus points for citing games that are clearly but not hugely more/less chess-like.
George,is the mate# also one for pieces such as the Amazon which can force mate without the assistance of the friendly King? Is there a need to distinguish these pieces from mate number 1 pieces such as the Rook which can easily force mate with the help of the friendly King but not without it?
Note that Xiangqi had no divergent pieces until the cannon was added, in the original version all pieces moved passively and captured in the same way. On the other hand, the Pawn in the various forms of early Indo-Persian Chess has been divergent since the earliest known times. If divergence is an evolutionary change, that suggests that Indo-Persian Chess is older that we currently think it is. On the other hand, it could be an import from some non-Chess Indo-Persian game, perhaps acquired from a Greek game at the time of Alexander the Great. This last factor does not apply at all to China. Note that divergent Pawns are conspicuously absent from Xiangqi, Janggi, and Shogi, but do occur in various SE Asian variants, which have influences fom both China and India. So I would propose the points: 1. Maybe both the Indo-Persian origin theory and the Chinese origin theory are wrong and two different but somewhat similar games were developed independently, perhaps with some mutual influence on one another. 2. My idea could easily be wrong (probably is). 3. So could anybody's idea be wrong, whether they think Chess originated in China, India, Atlantis, or Mars. 4. Documentary evidence is not definitive, nor is it likely to become so. 5. It ultimately doesn't matter, however interesting the question is. 6. It sure as hell isn't worth a. practicing racism, or b. accusing others of racism.
Perhaps a rule change for the Go-Away scream is in order. I would suggest something like this: 1. All pushes are executed. 2. Any Human to Zombie promotions are executed. 3. Any effects resulting in piece destruction are executed (engulfment, zombies on ichor or multiple occupancy squares, etc.). 4. Any petrifications are executed. All partial moves under a single number would be deemed simultaneous. Under this proposed rule, the owner of the Go-Away is unable to specify the order of effects. This will reduce the tactical complexity of these moves and hopefully render the programming problem tractable. Whether it would overly damage the peculiar and interesting flavor of Nemoroth is a question I'm not qualified to answer.
What are the general characteristics of a pawn-like piece? I'd nominate these characteristics: 1. Most numerous piece type in the game. 2. Weakest piece type in the game. 3. Short range. 4. Non-retreating. 5. Promotes to something decisive (can force mate). For illustration, consider how several variants stack up: FIDE Chess: pawn satisfies each criterion perfectly. Shatranj: Perfect for 1-4, deficient in criterion 5, as K + Ferz that a pawn promotes to can't force mate (less of a problem with the Shatranj ruleset as stalemate and bare King are wins). my own Pocket Mutation Chess: 1-3 is perfect, 4 is not so much so, as a pawn can retreat via a pocket move, 5 partially not a fit, while the pawn has a promotion path to a decisive piece, it can only only promote directly to a Knight or Bishop, which can't force mate. Betza's For The Birds Chess: 1, 2, 4 and 5 OK but the pawn-like piece has a long range move. my own Wizards' War: nothing remotely resembling a pawn in this game (by design--one of my design objectives was a playable, pawn-less, strong piece game). I submit that all the games are playable Chess Variants (broadly defined) but the better a variant conforms to these criteria, the more 'Chess-like' it is. Try analyzing some other variants with these criteria and let me know what you think of this hypothesis, offering alternative/additional criteria if you wish.
Add my favorable vote to the others. I find the articles interesting and enjoyable--and I say this as someone who has has disagreements in the past with Mr. Duke. If anyone doesn't like them they are easy to skip--no need for the CVP to spoil it by removing interesting articles.
Thanks to everyone for welcoming me back! I have updated my profile with my new email.
I am ready to come back to the chess variant pages after a long absence (over 2 years). I had a stroke in April 2009 and it's been a long road back. I was in a nursing home for a year and a half and was still very weak when I came home. While I'm still confined to a wheelchair, I'm fully OK mentally and am physically very capable--fully up to hanging out on line, commenting on posts, inventing games.... So expect to see me now and again. A special hello to Joe Joyce and thanks for everyone who make CVP possible.
I presume that capturing the opponent's King on the eighth rank with your last Pawn also wins. This is clear from the logic of the loss conditions, but you might want to state this explicitly. Also, stalemating by promoting your last pawn should win. You may wish to consider triple repetition as a loss--this is fairly common where stalemate is a loss. I intend these suggestions as minor clarifications for a very fine game.
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.
I'm working on a couple of additional piece sets for PM. One is part of the Short Range Project and the other eliminates Nightriders and provides additional enhancements. In both cases I expect a more strategic, less explosive game. I am in no way dissatisfied with the classic piece set, I just think providing some alternatives will be interesting for players who like the game concept but would prefer a different feel. When I have them worked up I will amend the game page and submit a new ZRF.
David is surely correct. Black's Queen is not in check so how can moving it along the shared line of movement with the Lion put it in check? For the Lion to capture the Queen, there must be a third piece between them to act as a screen: Qh1, Qi1, or Qj1 being interpreted as check means that Black's Queen is being used as its own screen.
A fine start to what I hope will be a lengthy and very informative series. The various games already generated by this project are first rate and I expect many more as the work continues. I might point out that the shorter range of pieces opens some possibilities that may be more practical than in games with long range pieces. Relay Chess leaps to mind, as well as various forms of Progressive. While I love the Shatranj Pawns in the variants, I think that a shortrange piece game with stronger Pawns might be most interesting as well.
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.
The Mammoth is a strong piece. Betza's Atomic Theory suggests a 4-atom value, equal to a Cardinal. Its lack of range is compensated by unblockability and excellent coverage of nearby sqaures.
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.
I am most honored that Pocket Mutation Chess was selected as the newest Recognized Chess Variant and the voted Recognized Variant of the Month the first time out. Clearly PM is my finest creation but I never imagined it would join such august company in under three years.
Roberto, thank you for your comment. I'm putting the finishing touches on a ZRF and it will be up later this weekend. Andy, the restriction was added to prevent check on the opening move, followed by continuing attacks resulting in a White win in 10 moves or so in most cases. The current rule for the Pao/Vao moves strengthens the defense as well as weakening the attack.
The idea of Josh getting a hold of rifle cature is pretty scary (though fascinating). I have made some small changes to get a playable game--I explaind my reasoning to Josh and he seemed to get it--saying 'OK, Daddy, I think that's a good idea.' Originally Josh allowed the cannon moves without restriction: the piece leaped over could belong to either side and the move could be capturing or non capturing. This in combination with the hook move is much too powerful--White's Queen jumps over its pawn line and checks, then plays King hunt until mate. But limiting he line pieces to leaping over a friendly piece only make the game playable. Also, a piece cannot both leap and hook in the same move. So here is a description of Joshua's Chess as it now stands, pending a full web page. Joshua's Chess is played on a 12x12 board with the usual pieces: the armies are on the back ranks and centered. The Pawn moves and captures one or two squres straight forward, diagonally forward, or sideways. These are strong little guys and protect each other well. A pawn reaching the twelfth rank may optionally promote to any piece its owner has lost. If the option is not taken, the Pawn may be later promoted after moving one or two squres sideways on the twelfth rank. No e.p. The Knight has its usual move and in addition can leap 3 squares orthogonally or move a single square orthogonally. This is precisely the move Joshua invented: he understands the Knight's move to be a L shape, two squares othogonally then one at right angles: he generalized this by allowing the one squre move to continue in the original direction or go back the direction it came. The Bishop may move and capture normally. It may also move and capture after leaping diagonally over one friendly piece. A Bishop which did not leap and finished on an empty sqare may optionally move one squre at right angles to its original path--a one square hook move. The Rook is the Bishop's orthogonal counterpart, with the same leaping and hook move options. The Queen has the combined Bishop and Rook moves. This is one scary piece. Though not a powerful as the Queen piece in Betza's Tripunch Chess, it can use the leap move to develop faster. The King can has its usual move, can move as a FIDE Knight, or leap to the second square orthogonally or diagonally. Leaping over check is legal. No castling. The Pawns and Knights allow fairly good defense in the opening and middlegame. In the endgame, K Q vs K and K R vs K are easy: a Rook can mate unassisted on an empty board. King and any two minor pieces should be a win. K P vs K should win in most cases--the Pawn can't be blocked.
He knows about Chess variants in a very vague way--that it is possible to play Chess with alternate pieces/rules, but he has never played a variant.
Yesterday Josh and I were playing Chess and he got taken by the Muse (or temporary insanity) and started inventing a variant! He reinvented the Chinese Cannon and its diagonal counterpart as well as the hook move, and used these moves to strenghten the Rooks, Bishops, and the Queen. He also created an augemted Knight and some very powerful pawns.
He also made some design decisions without prompting from Daddy. He decided an unlimited hook move was too strong, so it will be limited to a single square. He also decided that strengthening the other pieces required a stonger King and came up with the idea the the King could move KNAD and could leap over check. He also suggested that stronger pieces might make a better game if placed on a larger board.
It was most fascinating to observe Josh's though processes.
The game seems playable. While I don't expect it to have the acclaim of Demian Freeling's Congo, Joshua is nearly two years younger that Demian was.
I will be creating the ZRF and webpage over the next few days.
David, The SR Murray Lions seems to be a capital addition to the SR army and would make for a nice variant. I don't care for pushing the pawn line forward. I invented it solely, Peter didn't collaborate on this--and I despise this variant: it ruins the peculiar flavor of Separate Realms. I'd prefer to try it on an 8x10 board, or position the Lions as you suggest and only move the Pawns on the Lion's squares forward. Clearly K L vs K is a win in most cases in separate realms: K vs K is decisive if the Kings are on the same color--the King able to gain the oppositon can force statemate. So if the Kings are on the same color, the Lion stays out of it if you have the oppositon and wastes a move if the enemy has the opposition, thus giving the oppositon back to you. If the Kings are on opposite colors and the Lion is on the same color as the enemy King, forcing a win should be no trouble. If the Lion is on the same color as the friendly King, it should be quite possible to set up a position where the Lion is moved adjacent to the enemy King which is forced to make a losing realm-switching capture. It would take extensive analysis to demonstrate a forced win in all cases, but the win percentage is certain to be very high. The only non-trivial K X vs King ending with the standard SR pieces which is draw is K B vs K with the K B on the opposite color from the enemy King.
The apparent ambiguity in the Roccoco rules for the Long Leaper were carried over into the rules for Fugue. Since the Fugue Long Leaper cannot make multiple captures, there is no need for the phrase 'jump over adjacent pieces' and I hereby remove it from the rules. (Could an editor make this change as soon as convenient?) In Fugue, a capture such as +--+--+--+--+--+ |LL| |p |p | x| +--+--+--+--+--+ is illegal as a multiple capture in any case, regardless of the ambiguous 'adjacent pieces', while +--+--+--+--+--+ |LL|p | | | x| +--+--+--+--+--+ is legal as in ultima and Rococco.
For a drawless chess, amend FIDE rules as follows: 1. Stalemate is a loss for the stalemated player. 2. Triple repetion is a loss for the repeating player. 3. If fifty moves by both sides have elapsed since the last capture or Pawn move, the player who made the last capture or Pawn move may claim a win.
The problem is in a scoring system the rates two draws as good as a win and possibly the tiebreaker method. The conditions of the contest create incentives to play for draws.
Other games have done worse--I can cite examples in bridge, football, and hockey where the conditions of contest created incentives to lose certain matches.
But then this can happen in Chess in any kind of elimination event. Say I'm assured of qualifying for the next round and in my final game of this round I'm playing A who is 1/2 point ahead of B for the last spot. Now let's say that based on past experience, I just can't beat B. It is to my advantage to dump my game to A to make sure B does not qualify.
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.
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?
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.
Peter, I think that the freer capturing is really more in line with your rationale for the edge sqaures in the first place: to keep pieces from using the edges to hide from Long Leapers. So how about: A piece may not move to an edge square except to capture a piece which it could not capture by moving to a non-edge square. This applies even if the starting square is an edge square. The Swapper's swap move is a capture for this purpose whether the piece swapped is friendly or hostile, as is a Chameleon's swap with a Swapper whether friendly or hostile.
Larry is on the right track, but the moves to attack a piece measure will give false results in some games. In Decima, for example, White's usual opening move attacks a Black piece, yet the game is less sensitive than FIDE chess. It may be that number of moves to attack a goal piece is not always accurate, though no examples spring to mind. Clearly more resarch is needed to decide the best measure.
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.
Garry, I have a working ZRF implementing all the rules as you have given them on the web page. Please send me the graphics files and I will finish the implementation. The Valkyrie swap is evaluated correctly when involving non-royal pieces, only the swap with a King is problematic. The bug is in the evaluation of win/loss/draw conditions within the consideration of the move: removing a royal piece temporarily to replace it elsewhere is deemed a loss, whereas after the move is executed and Zillions checks the conditions, it is handled correctly. In other words, during a swap move, Zillions mistakenly thinks the temporary disappearance of the King while it is being swapped to another square is permanent. In any case, the indirect capture target technique solves the problem. One question: is it legal to use the Valkyrie swap to make a null move? That is if a Valkyrie on c6 swaps the other Valkyrie at c9 back to c6, then you have made a move but the position on the board hasn't changed. In most CV's the answer is 'No', so I have coded accordingly: a Valkyrie cannot swap positions with the other Valkyrie and a King using a Valkyrie move connot swap positions with the other King. If you intend to allow null moves it is trivially simple to change the code to allow them.
I will start development this weekend. I can use a coventional board and piece graphics while I'm perfecting the implementation and substitute the final graphics later. I might be able to derive the images I need from the picture on the Web page, which looks really good. By the way, Peter, I should have credited you with the indirect capture target technique which I learned from you. It simplifies many complex situtations as well as the king swap issue. It is, for example, essential to the implementation of the Decima 10-points condition.
I am witholding a rating until I get a chance to playtest it, but unless there is some hidden flaw I expect to rate it 'excellent'. The game concept is very innovative and I particulaly like those quirky Pawns. Is anyone working on a ZRF for this game? If not, I will try it myself. If anyone is, you will need some code trickery--a straight forward 'capture both kings' type win condition will make Zillions very hesistant to use the Valkyrie swap move on a King--during move evaluation, Zillions erroneously considers this to be a loss of the King, though it treats the move correctly when actually determining if the win condition is achieved. Email me for details.
I have resubmitted my final revisions for the Decima webpage and the ZRF. I have been haivng email problems and I am uncertain if my previous submissions after the original have been received. Could one of the esteemed editors let me know if this morning's submissions have been received?
Mason, I have not found Decima to be overly drawish, especially in the latest version I descibed in my previous comment. In my test games (Zillions of Games vs. itself at the most intelligent setting), the outcomes in order or frequency: 1. Win by getting two pieces to the tenth rank. 2. Win by getting a King to the tenth rank. 3. Win by annihilation of the enemy army (including forced suicide capture). 4. Draw. 5. Win by Pawn promotion. 6. Win by getting more than two pieces to the tenth rank. The Pawn promotion seldom wins outright by often leads to a win by another means by forcing a suicide capture by a key defensive piece. Some very small endings are decisive for example Pawn vs. Pawn is a win by annihilation or promotion in all cases except where the Pawns are in front of each other on the same file. King vs. X is only a draw if X is a Rook or if X is a King in certain positions. King vs. Queen, Marshall, or Seneschal is loss by annihilation. King vs. Palladin, Pope, Duke, Bishop, or Knight is a win by reahcing th etenth rank. King vs Pawn will depend on the positioon, but will only draw if the King catches the Pawn on the promotion square--all other King vs. Pawn endings are decisive.
I have submitted revisons which should appear shortly. After playtesting and crtique by Michael Howe and further testing of my own, I have made these changes: 1. The positon of the Kings and Knights in the opening setup is swapped. M. Howe observed that it was usual to move a Knight on the opening move to liberate a Rook, which in effect pinned the opponents Knight--to move it would allow RxR on the tenth rank and the recapture is a suicide capture. This has a considerabe cramping effect though it did not affect play balance as both sides could use the tactic. With Kings in this poistion the pin still occurs but is much less significant as the King can move on the file without exposing the Rook and it is much easier to untangle the position. 2. I have changed the last piece rules so that the suicide capture of the opponents last piece with your own last piece is a draw--which seems more logical. The situation itself is rare. 3. Pawns may take the double step anywhere on the board as many times as desired. 4. I have replaced en passant with M. Howe's excellent Pawn rule: a pawn may not move across a square attacked by an enemy Pawn. 5. A pawn on the tenth rank remains a Pawn, but on any subsequent turn may promote in place to King (winning unless the opponent can capture). Changes 3-5 have made Pawn play much more dynamic and exciting, while eliminating many dull draws when the armies are reduced below 10 points but winning by annihilation is not feasible.
Greg, Excellent work in doing all the calculations. Your figures confirm my designer's intuition that the value classes (desinged based on Betza's atomic theory of piece values, with no detailed math) are well-defined and playable. The worst case scenario is a discrepancy of 1.47 mobility between Nightrider and SuperBishop in class 3. This is vitually identical to the smallest difference between two pieces of differnt classes: 1.48 betweenS SuperCardinal (class 5) and ChancellorRider (class 6). However, some hard to quantify but very real values tend to narrow the former gap and widen the latter: The Nightrider is particularly strong in the opening and as a drop piece--this brings it closer to the SuperBishop which is not particularly outstanding in either respect (though hardly poor). The ChancellorRider has a Rook move, so it has King Interdiction power (the ability to prevent a King from crossing a rank or file covered by a Rook move, thus confining it to a restricted area of the board). As the SuperCardinal does not have King Interdiction power, this gap widens.
Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.
I've been doing some extensive playtesting of my creation and find that it plays well--the win condition works very well. Some serious endgame testing with Zillions has lead me to change the last piece conditions. Now a the full win/loss/draw conditions are: 1. Having pieces worth 10 or more points on your tenth rank at the beginning of your turn wins. 2. Capturing your opponent's last piece wins. 3. Losing your own last piece via suicide capture loses. 4. Doing 2 & 3 on the same move (leavng an empty board) wins. 5. Stalemate, triple repetition, and the 50-move rule are draws.
Roberto, I am in fact doing the design and testing by writing a ZRF, so the implementation takes care of itself. The gameplay is interesting and the piece set works well. I will need some more endgame testing and may changes some of the rules (stalemate, last piece, etc). But in essense I have a game design I'm happy with.
Charles is of course correct--one will never promote to Rook, Bishop, or King in this game, as their moves are subsets of the Queen's move. this can never be desirable when stalemate is not an issue. Underpromoting to a Knight can be correct as its move is distinct from the Queen's
An excellent tournament--well run and well played. Congratulation to Antoine for his near perfecto: 10.5/11 is very impressive in any tournament. Congratulations to Roberto for a very solid second with a score that might well have won had Antoine been less dominating. I loved playing this tournament in spite of finishing last (of those who completed the tournament) and in spite of gaining only 1 point over the board. I did at least chalk up a fairly impressive win at my own Pocket Mutation Chess. I hope that the preparation for Mutivariant 2005 will be underway soon--definetly count me in.
Define two directions with links: (links cw (e5 e6) (e6 e7) (e7 e8) (e8 e9) (e9 e10) (e10 e11) (e11 f11) (f11 g11) (g11 h11) (h11 i11) (i11 j11) (j11 k11) (k11 k10) (k10 k9) (k9 k8) (k8 k7) (k7 k6) (k6 k5) (k5 j5) (j5 i5) (i5 h5) (h5 g5) (g5 f5) (f5 e5) ) (links ccw (e5 f5) (f5 g5) (g5 h5) (h5 i5) (i5 j5) (j5 k5) (k5 k6) (k6 k7) (k7 k8) (k8 k9) (k9 k10) (k10 k11) (k11 j11) (j11 i11) (i11 h11) (h11 g11) (g11 f11) (f11 e11) (e11 e10) (e10 e9) (e9 e8) (e8 e7) (e7 e6) (e6 e5) ) Use these directions in the serpent's move.
I think the real issue is to alert the players to the fact that a drawn game has in fact been achieved so the game can be concluded and the final round started. It is evident that both players were suffering from the same misperception of the PMC draw rules. Carlos had earlier posted an inquiry to the PM page about a perpetual check draw. I answered him that the rule was the same as in FIDE--perpetual check is not a draw per se, but always leads to triple repetion or the fifty-move rule (virtaully always the former). It is self evident that Carlos intended to achieve a draw--Antoine has a won game absent the perpetual check--therefor he must have been unaware that he has done so.
This is a misinterpretation of Rule 8 of PMC. Triple repetition is a draw, just as in FIDE Chess--per rule Zero, all FIDE rules apply except as contardicetd by the given rules. PMC has a differnt 50-move rule because the essence of the 50 move rule is irretractable change--and a pawn move in not unretractable in PMC. Triple repetition is the same as in FIDE, therefor it isn't stated explictily in the PMC rules. The game in question is indeed a draw if the player to move chooses to claim it.
The correct value depends on what magic number (square emptiness probability) is chosen. I go with Ralph's uppen end estimate of .7 With his lower end estimate of 2/3 then the value of the SS Rhino would be 2 + 2 *(2/3) = 3 1/3 The Gnomon is a different matter: its lame H move must be multiplied by .49 or .44 as there are two interventing squres.
I have an idea for Pocket Mutation Demotion Chessgi. It will use the same pieces and value classes as PM. The rules for using the pocket are expanded: When you capture an enemy pawn, it is removed from the game. If you capture any other enemy piece, it is demoted to the next lower value class, mutated to a friendly piece of your choice in that class, and put in your pocket. This is mandatory even if your pocket is not empty and will cause the removal of any piece in your pocket from the game. Notice how you can't put a strong piece in the pocket and wait around for a good drop--in effect you can only capture pawns as long a s that strong piece is there. Imagine having a Queen in your Pocket and the opponent checks with a Knight and the only counter is to capture the Knight. At the cost of a Knight, the enemy has changed your Queen into a pawn!
Tim, The Rhino can move one step in any direction and stop on that square (same as a non-royal king) as well as turning 45 degrees in the appropriate direction and moving a second square. The non-royal King move alone is worth 2 atoms. If the second move comonent if it were a leap would also be 2 atoms. To allow for lameness, mutiply by .7, so add 1.4 atoms for this component for a total of 3.4 atoms. The piece is substantially stronger than a Rook. You may be confused by some incarnations of the Rhino requiring the first step to be orthogonal -- such a piece is indeed worth only 1.7 atoms, less than a Knight.
I think the fifth category for historically significant variants is a good idea. Los Alamos Chess definitely belongs here because of its seminal importance in the history of computer chess. Star Trek 3D does't belong. The 'excellent' is for Fergus and his fine ideas for improving the Recognized Variants list.
Carlos, Yes and No. FIDE Chess rules apply to Pocket Mutation Chessexcept where otherwise stated. Under current FIDE rules, perpetual check is not a draw in and of itself (it once was), but if you are able to give perpetual check, you can always force triple repetition or the 50-move rule, both of which are draws. Note that Pocket Mutation's 50-move rule is different from FIDE: promotions and captures reset the move count, but Pawn moves do not.
Ralph Betza's work suggests doing mobility conditions based on about 60% of initial piece density. This is 30% for FIDE Chess and 26.4% for Unicorn Chess. If Ralph is correct and this is the best value for overall mobility ratings, the Unicorn is measurablly stronger than the Queen with respect to mobility, as break even occurs at 22% piece density. One overlooked Queen advantage that tends to even out the non-mobility evaluation factors: The Queen has the King Interdiction ability and the Unicorn lacks it. King Interdiction refers to the ability of a Rook (or any piece having a Rook's move) to confine the enemy King to a certain section of the board by attacking the entire length of a rank or file so that the King cannot cross it.
The only advantage in sticking to orthochess rules as much as possible is to simplfy describing/learning the game. But this doesn't really apply to complications such as e.p and castling. It is reasonable to use e.p. if the Pawn has a double step--but it isn't a given that the Pawn should have a double step. (It works badly on a 7x7 board, for example). E.P. isn't the only reasonable alternative, either. I rather like the Nova Chess rule that prohibits a pawn from moving thru a square where it could have been captured by another pawn if it had stopped there--this works especially well when there are several pawn type pieces in the game. Similarly, if you have castling, it is good if it is similar to orthochess, but whether to have castling is a design decision based on the overall character of the pieces and the game. But again, ortho castling isn't best for every game--free castling suits some games better.
I echo the previous comment about the game itself. As for the image, I deem it to be soft porn. I say this as someone who occasionaly chooses to view 'adult' images--but I don't want my kids to do so while looking for CV's. Please remove the link.
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.
Not quite. Chaturanga allows a pawn to promote to the piece whose starting square it reaches--a pawn prmoting on a8 becomes a Rook, on b8 a Knight. It doesn't matter which pawn it is, only which square it promotes on. In Tamerlane's, the Rook's pawn always promotes to Rook no matter where on the back rank it promotes, the Knight's pawn promotes to Knight, etc. Here what square the pawn promotes on doesn't matter and which pawn it is does--pretty much the exact opposite of Chaturanga.
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.
100 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.
It suddenly started working :)