[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments by PeterAronson
Yellow is the color of mystery in Italy? I wonder if Robert Chambers knew
that. (Robert Chambers was an early writer of supernatural horror who's
work, particularly <u>The King in Yellow</u>, was cited as major influence
by Lovecraft and his circle.)
<p>
Repetition is now forbidden!
<p>
I have printed out your screed to study in the morning, when the sap rises
and the brain cells go off strike.
<p>
Forget the root beer or the Hennepin, what I want is a case of Diet Moxie.
It's the one form of soda that my kids will not filch.
<p>
(I have actually recently dived into the seas of i18n, actually -- talk
about your eldritch horrors! The subtle distinctions between UCS-2 and
UTF-16 will drive me mad, <strong>mad</strong> I say! <i>Mua, ha, ha,
ha . . .</i>)
Some initial thoughts upon reading <b>The Official Rules of Nemoroth</b>.
(Some of which should have been raised by the previous article.)
<p>
<ul>
<li>The Ghast. How is 'two squares' defined -- does a Ghast frighten a
piece a Knight's move away from it?</li>
<p>
<li>Compelled Moves. It is really unclear reading both documents just
<i>who</i> moves the fleeing pieces, the owner or the player who causes
them to flee.</li> I'm assuming the following sequence:
<ol>
<li>A's Ghast is move; A's turn is over.</li>
<li>B moves all compelled pieces, in the order they choose; B's turn is
over.</li>
<li>If B caused any compelled moves, then A must make them as necessary,
otherwise, A may move as they please.</li>
</ol>
If the above is the case, if B's resolution of compelled moves caused
further compelled moves for B (by screaming 'Go Away' at an opposing
Ghast), are they resolved in that turn? If there are multiple such moves
(as B 'ping-pongs' A's Ghast between two Go Aways), could a piece make
multiple compelled moves in a turn this way?
<p>
For that matter, if you are compelled into a square which you must move off
of, is that resolved the same turn or the following turn?</li>
<p>
<li>Petrified Leaf Piles. I think I would have assumed a petrified Leaf
Pile could still engulf if pushed, but the rules state otherwise. I guess
that the assumption is that it isn't mobile enough to engulf anything
anymore.</li>
<p>
<li>The Interaction Matrix. If you actually created a matrix of all the
possible interactions, it might be nice to include it in document as a
table.</li>
<p>
<li>A simplified version of this game could have it when any piece is
pushed into an occupied square, all pieces in the square are crushed and
eliminated, and when a piece is pushed onto an ichorous square, it and the
ichor are also eliminated. This might be useful for starting players.</li>
</ul>
How do you plan to combine the documents? Take the first part of the
original followed by the new? Or perhaps a detailed merging? Or perhaps
just bring the first into compliance with the second, and then have the
second as a link from the first?
<hr>
I am just as glad to have missed the early days of i18n (I was aware of all
the weirdness, but was involved more things like the stability of floating
point numbers through multiple operations in those days).
A couple of tangental issues:
<hr>
Is <b>The Game of Nemoroth</b> a Chess Variant? It would rather depend on
who you asked. On one hand the game is clearly derived from Chess, but on
the other, some believe that a Royal Piece is the sine qa non of a Chess
Variant. Thus, one person classified V.R. Parton's game
<a href='../parton/100Squares.txt'>Damate</a> as not a Chess variant, even
though is played with Chess pieces (albeit using capture by overtaking),
while classifying my game
<a href='http://www.zillions-of-games.com/games/towers.html'>Towers</a> as
a Chess Variant, which I did not. Myself, I like a loose definition of
Chess Variant.
<hr>
Why is it that when I encounter an Ultima variant, it inevitably seems
more complex than Ultima, not less? (This includes David Howe's and my
as-yet-unpublished game of <b>Rococo</b> (I haven't forgotten about it
David!)). I guess there something about the game that says: 'this could
be even more complex, try it!'
How did I come to that conclusion? It wasn't a sin of commission, but
perhaps a sin of omission, or perhaps just my mistake. You wrote:
<blockquote>
There are cases in which pieces are compelled to move. When you are under compulsion, you may make any move which removes the compulsion, but if you cannot satisfy the compulsion of at least one piece, you lose. (Think of it as checkmate.)
</blockquote>
Somehow it didn't occur to me that unlike the Go Away, the Ghast's compulsion (and other compulsions) just affected what moves were required
and legal. An alternate wording might be something like:
<blockquote>
There are cases in which pieces are compelled to move. If you have any
compelled pieces, you must move one of them as your move, although you
may choose among your compelled pieces with legal moves. If you have
compelled pieces, and none of your compelled pieces have legal moves, you
are stalemated and thus lose.
</blockquote>
Strangely enough, compelled moves are a bit like capturing moves in
checkers, being higher priority than other moves.
I use a very simple rule for detrmining what's an
Ultima variant or not: if
the author calls it an Ultima variant, it is; if not, it isn't. So The Game of Nemoroth and my game
Interweave are not Ultima
variants since they don't call themselves that (although Interweave
describes itself has being sort of Ultima-like).
Examining this site and The Encyclopedia of Chess Variants, I find the following Ultima Variants:
- Bogart's Chess, which replaces a Chameleon and a Long Leaper with an Absorber (which picks up the capture method of each piece it captures) and a Golem, which only moves two but has to be captured twice (this was the inspiration for Golem Chess).
- Renaissance, which is played on a 9x9 board, and adds a Pusher, a Puller, a Resurrector, and a Bomb, and has a limited form of drops of captured pieces (using the Resurrector).
- Stupid, where each piece can move like an Ultima piece and an Orthochess piece.
- Ulti-Matem, except the Pawns have the moves of the Orthochess pieces they would be standing in front of, except for the King's Pawn which is a Double Knight Pawn which makes two Knight's moves in a row in any pattern.
- Ultimate Ultima which you described in this comment system here.
- Unorthodox Ultima, in which a Long Leaper and a Chameleon are replaced by a Neutalizer (which removes the ability to capture of adjacent pieces) and a Repeller which forces an opposing piece moved next to move as far away as possible.
Interweave 
. Game with elements of Checkers and Ultima where all pieces are colorbound and only capture pieces on the other color.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]ZRF updated to fix multiple captures by Remover, revision displayed in
history is now 1.4 for latest version.
Mideast chess. Variant on 10 by 10 board, inspired by ancient Tamerlane chess. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I would have to agree that the Cavalier (Gryphon + Aanca) is a kind of
extreme piece, but if you look at Ralph Betza's note on the value of such
<a href='../piececlopedia.dir/bent-riders.html'>Bent Riders</a>, you will
see that he rates such a piece as being worth slightly less than an
Amazon (Queen + Knight) on an 8x8 board [Although honestly requires me to
add that Ralph himself is not entirely convinced of his piece evaluation
system, although in my experiance it is at least approximately right most
of the time]. On a 10x10 board the Cavalier gains some additional value,
while the Amazon would probably break even (Queen components gain in value,
Knight components lose in value) -- so call the Cavalier a rough equivalent
of an Amazon.
<p>
Now, would two Amazons be too strong for a 10x10 board? It comes down to
a matter of taste I suppose, but I have to suspect that as Tony Paletta
noted in a comment on <a href='../large.dir/full-double-chess.html'>Full
Double Chess</a>, their presence would tend to
reduce the minor pieces to cannon fodder (although there is fun to be had
with weak pieces).
<p>
In any case, I rather like your idea of substituting Cooked Bishops -- the
world needs more games with Crooked Bishops (and where, you may ask are
<em>your</em> games with Crooked Bishops, Mr. Aronson? Err, well, the
<a href='../dpieces.dir/fighting-fizzies.html'>Fighting Fizzies</a> have
a WzFF as a Queen, and otherwise, they're all in the future . . .)
<hr>
I'm commenting on your comment here, rather than by e-mail as you suggested
as that way other people can join in the discussion and have fun.
I realize 'Croocked Bishop' is a typo, but I suddenly find myself wondering
how a drunken Bishop would move . . .
That wasn't the sort of fun I meant, John!
<br>
<br>
Cooked Bishop, eh? There are a lot of meanings of 'cooked', you know.
It can mean to falsify something, or to improvise something, or something
that has been preprocessed, or has a forced solution. Surely one of these
ideas are good for a variant . . .
Choson chess
. Korean game, resembling Shogi, mentioned in a novel.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]The rating I really want to give this page is 'interesting'; not
<b>Excellent</b>, <b>Good</b> or <b>Poor</b>, but interesting.
<p>
While the game L. U. Kisljuk describes is perfectly playable, I have real
doubts it ever existed. Much more likely London confused a description
of Shogi with Korea, and gave it a name often used for Korea at that time.
Or possibly he was just passing on someone else's mistake.
I've never heard any evidence that the Koreans played Shogi in the past,
and this is the first 'historical' game I've ever heard of that combined
drops and cannons. Remember Occam's Razor.
The Game of Nemoroth. For the sake of your sanity, do not read this variant! (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]You <strong><em>don't</em></strong> want to pronounce Nemoroth correctly.
You really don't. But if you must, <i>do not pronounce that dread name in
a room with any corners!</i> But I'm probably worrying about nothing.
<br>
<br>
<br>
Heh.
Good memory, John! 'The Hounds of Tindalos' (which was by Frank Belknap
Long, one of the Lovecraft circle) was exactly what I was referencing.
<p>
I've been listening to Ruddigore in my car of late (my interest in it being
stirred up again by recent conversations here), and I now somehow
associate The Game of Nemoroth with
<a href='http://math.boisestate.edu/gas/ruddigore/html/night_wind_howls.html'>'When
the Night Wind Howls'</a>.
Gnohmon, 'When the Night Winds Howl' wasn't a rational selection to match
Nemoroth, but rather an association made somewhere in the depths of my
subconscious. And the instrumental component would work well enough.
I spent some (to much!) time last night fooling around with Ruddigore Chess. I started by hacking and slashing up Fergus's Duniho's Chessgi ZRF, and seeing what happened. (Zillions is hardly the only tool suitable for this sort of thing, of course, but it is the one that usually comes to hand for me. Occasionally I worry about the effect this has on my game designing, since if the only tool you have is a hammer, everthing starts
to look like a nail. However, the essay <u>Zillions of Games: threat or
menace</u>, will have to wait for another day.)
<p>
As a frame, the battle represents a Loser-take-all battle between Sir
Ruthven Murgatroyd (white) and Sir Despard Murgatroyd (black) as to who
will be stuck being the cursed Bad Baronet of Ruddigore.
<p>
The initial rules were:
<ol>
<p>
<li><b>Ruddigore</b> Chess is a
<a href='../other.dir/chesgi.html'>Chessgi</a> variant, and all rules of
that game apply except when contradicted below.</li>
<p>
<li>Each turn that a player does not perform a wicked deed by capturing a
piece (their's or their opponent's), they must sacrifice a piece to
the curse. Pieces in hand may be sacrificed. Sacrificed pieces are out of
the game.</li>
<p>
<li>You may capture your own pieces ('If a man can't capture his own,
pieces, <strong>whose</strong> pieces <em>can</em> he capture?'). Pieces
of your own you capture go into your hand.</li>
<p>
<li>The first three turns are a Bank Holiday, and there are no captures or
sacrifices then.</li>
<p>
<li>If you run out of other pieces to sacrifice, and you must sacrifice,
you must sacrifice your King and lose.</li>
</ol>
<p>
The problem with this game, as a few minutes of thought would have told me,
is that it is far, far easier to capture your own pieces than the
opponent's. What you get is mostly self captures with occasional threats
in order to force a piece loss on the opponent, with the goal of having
them run out of pieces to sacrifice first. Not very Chess-like.
<p>
The made the follow changes then, attempting to get more pieces engaged:
<ul>
<p>
<li>Only the King, renamed the Baronet and given the ability to capture
(but not move without capturing) like a Knight in addition to moving
like a King [WFcN], can
capture friendly pieces (if you want something done right . . .).</li>
<p>
<li>The Knights are replaced by Gentlemen, which are limited Nightriders
(NN2).</li>
<p>
<li>Pawns are now Quickpawns which can always move two forward, and I've
eliminated en passant to encourage them.</li>
</ul>
<p>
This made a small difference, but not enough. So I eliminated the Bank Holiday, and made sacrifices required only on even turns (Sir Despard did
all of his wicked deeds in the morning, and did good in the afternoon).
This helped a lot, now you can capture your own piece on an even turn,
and deploy it on an odd one. Now, though, I'm wondering if the Gentlemen
are too powerful, since when dropped they can fork like anything. Maybe
Halfling Nightriders?
<p>
I also find I'm tempted to rename everything: Pawns into Farmers, Bishops
into Vicars, Rooks into Squires, and Queens to Stewards. But on the
other hand, if the move hasn't changed, it is confusing to change the name
of the piece.
<p>
Anyway, this is still very much an on-going project, and I'd appreciate any
advice anyone has.
<a href='http://diamond.boisestate.edu/gas/ruddigore/discussion/short.html'>This</a>
is a wonderful, if silly short summary of the plot of Ruddigore.
I kind of like the current version, and will play with it further. That is: - Sacrifice every other turn - Knights replaced by Halfling Nightriders - Only Baronets (Royal WFcN) can capture own pieces - Pawns are quick Pawns and no en passant I'll try to find some of my usual suspects to playtest with via e-mail, and see how it works.
Well, I do worry about limiting my designs to what works well for Zillions.
Of the 17 or so games I've published since I've learned Zillions
programming, only one -- Transactional Chess -- has not been implemented
with Zillions. This leads me to wonder what games am I 'self-censoring'
in favor the ones that are easily implementable with Zillions. The games
I designed before were often difficult to completely implement for
Zillions; some would merely say that Zillions was simplify causing me to
simply the games, which is all to the good. But there can be simple ideas
that are not simple to implement with Zillions. Chatter Chess would be
a great deal of work to implement in Zillions, for example.
I hadn't worked with halfing Nightriders before -- it's a very nice piece.
All halflings have shorter range the closer they get to the center, but
the hhNN is more extreme somehow, moving like regular Knights when in the
central 4x4 area. I'll have to use them somewhere else someday.
That's a though, David. It does, of course, require you to keep track
of two classes of captured pieces. A few other ideas in that
direction:
<ul>
<p>
<li>Self-captured pieces go into your <em>opponent's</em> hand, not your
own;</li>
<p>
<li>Self-captured pieces turn into 'Prisoners', which can not be dropped,
only sacrificed to pay for the curse (this is a more extreme version of
Ralph's suggestion that self-captured pieces be demoted).</li>
<p>
</ul>
At the moment I'm inclined to allow full self-capturing -- it's, ah,
interesting.
Warp Point Chess. Knights are replaced by Warp Points that other pieces can move between. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]A very clean design with lots of tactical interest.
Spinal Tap vs Terror Chess. The Spinal Tap Chess army vs the Terror Chess army in the battle of the 11x11 variants. (11x11, Cells: 121) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]It's nice to see a game of different armies on a large canvas. It's hard
to tell if it is balanced or not, but I wonder if balance is as important
at this scale: both sides possibly having more material than they can
effectively use. Or is 11x11 with 22 pieces a side too small for that
sort of effect?
ICBM Chess. I(inter)-C(hess)B(oard) M(issle) Chess, where you can throw a piece to capture as well as make normal moves. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I would recommend safety goggles and a digital camera (to record board
positions) as useful equipment for this game.
Elevator Chess. Multiple boards with simultaneous games are linked through central elevator squares.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I could see times when you might send a piece up or down the elevator just
to clear an attack lane.
Spinal Tap vs Terror Chess. The Spinal Tap Chess army vs the Terror Chess army in the battle of the 11x11 variants. (11x11, Cells: 121) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Well, given that in Tai Shogi pieces promote when they capture (I think), he might have been discussing something other than material.
84 Spaces Contest. Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]The editor handling the contest, Fergus Duniho, hasn't been available to work on it of late. But there's plenty of time, and it will be caught up eventually.
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.