Comments by MichaelNelson
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.
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.