Check out Grant Acedrex, our featured variant for April, 2024.

[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ]
[ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ]
[ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]

Comments by Rich Hutnik

Later Reverse Order EarlierEarliest
Integrating Chess variants project[Subject Thread] [Add Response]
Rich Hutnik wrote on Sun, Dec 18, 2016 07:45 PM UTC:

This is a companion playlist for the project:

I will be looking at Chess variants and other way warfare gets abstracted in games.  The focus now is on integrating Chess variants.

And this is my guild/club/group for the project also:

Rich Hutnik wrote on Mon, Dec 12, 2016 01:41 AM UTC:

As part of my endless long shot ideas, one I have is to create a viable market for chess variant pieces.  To this end, I am working on a system that will bring together the world of Chess variants, into one system, in order to be able to get pieces to the market.  To this end, I am going to be sharing ideas I have about the system, and will welcome feedback. I am currently playtesting it, and can give input.

I will put videos up on my YouTube channel into this, and will welcome feedback.

You can see my video here on this:

I have been playing around with a Checker piece and the cannon recently, and also different boards.

DUAL RING Tournament Format. Tournament format for handling uneven number of players.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
💡📝Rich Hutnik wrote on Tue, May 12, 2015 04:42 PM UTC:
By the way, I did a YouTube video on my channel, looking at this format. Here is the video:

Chess Variant channel on YouTube[Subject Thread] [Add Response]
Rich Hutnik wrote on Sun, Dec 14, 2014 03:41 AM UTC:
Pardon me if anyone else may of posted this, but anyone ever check this
channel out on YouTube?

Eurasian Pawn piece. A hybrid European and Asian Pawn.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
💡📝Rich Hutnik wrote on Sun, Nov 30, 2014 10:52 PM UTC:
Jeremy, that is pretty much correct.  It is taking a FIDE Chess Pawn and allowing it to capture a piece in front of it.  In some games, the Pawn would only be allowed to advance one space forward.  There is no lateral movement, either to move or to capture.  A key board I see the pawn being used would be in cases of the Simplified Chess board, or any board where you want to secure an area in front of pawns, without giving them added mobility.

Logical Hexagonal Chess[Subject Thread] [Add Response]
Rich Hutnik wrote on Wed, Oct 15, 2014 05:33 PM UTC:
George, thank you for the article, as it would be worth reading more on, to
do research.

In regards to splitting the 6 movement in any way, I am not sure that is a
good idea.  I believe it mutes clarity, which you talked about.

Rich Hutnik wrote on Wed, Oct 15, 2014 10:51 AM UTC:
I did a blog post on this:

The basic point is that I don't believe that normal attempts at having a
chess game on a hex space are logical.  I believe, to make sense on a hex
board, in order to not have weird knights and bishops that become leapers,
pieces are restricted to these core move types:
- Move one space adjacent.
- Move in a straight line a number of spaces, without changing direction,
capturing an enemy piece or being blocked by a friendly piece, or stopping.
A piece would be able to move in 6 directions, one per side.
- Leaping in a line one or more pieces, ignoring occupied spaces. A piece
would leap in one of six directions.

Pieces can be formed out of a combination of these move types.

Anyhow, I would be interested in discussing this further.  Please comment
below.  I am thinking of working on my own hexagonal chess variant, after
observing a Chinese Checkers board (particularly the inside part that
isn't the bases), is sufficiently large to support a number of games.

Thank you for your time...

Use of extended pie rule for chess variants: [Subject Thread] [Add Response]
Rich Hutnik wrote on Thu, Sep 4, 2014 09:24 PM UTC:
My understanding about this category I mentioned here, is a version of the
Method is used with the likes of Squad Leader, in picking scenarios.  What
I add with the Limited Dutch Offer is another turn where traps can be
removed from play.  The idea is the same for both.  One could also decide
to do this for a single round play of one game, with a pool of variants. 
One person could pick a chess variant for both to play in the tournament,
and the other person then picks what side to play. They could also go and
do an adjustment to the board (both sides), and the initial player who
picked the variant picks both sides.

Another way to handle this is to have a player propose draw advantage to
one side, and an adjustment in other things like time to play, and so on.

Rich Hutnik wrote on Thu, Sep 4, 2014 02:52 AM UTC:
I wanted to get some feedback on this.  

Christian Freeling coined the term "Marquisian Method" which I had also
previously called "Limited Dutch Offer" (Dutch Offer being a take on a
Dutch Auction), but now means something a bit different.  For myself, I
came across this trying to figure out best way to balance A Few Acres of

With the Marquisian Method, one player sets up both sides of a game likes
chess, and the opponent picks one side to play.

I now have the Limited Dutch Offer to be an extended version of the Method,
by having it that a player can either pick one of the two sides the way
they are set up, or rearrange one of the two sides and pass the choice back
to the player who initially set up the board.  Reason for the Limited Dutch
Offer approach is to minimize the chance of trap positions being created,
where a player who knows a position real well, could end up setting up a
trap they can win.  The Marquisian Method, which has its origins in
Checkers, came about exactly like this.

Anyone every try this, or want to, or have any thoughts to add?

Eurasian Pawn piece. A hybrid European and Asian Pawn.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
💡📝Rich Hutnik wrote on Sat, Oct 6, 2012 01:36 AM UTC:
The idea is to add another way to control area on the board, while preserving pawn structure, or making pawn structure able to be broken (as opposed to other approaches to give the pawn lateral movement).  Maybe it has very limited usage, but it is there for consideration.  My feeling is a board with an odd number of rows could benefit from it.

KINGDROPS: new game and design goals[Subject Thread] [Add Response]
Rich Hutnik wrote on Thu, Sep 27, 2012 08:37 PM UTC:
I had some comments and questions here:
* Is the reason for no leapers clarity?
* Do you have Zillions?  If not, consider getting it and implementing it in
Zillions to see how both sides play.
* Once you feel more secure about the design, consider having it as a game
entry on the CV site, rather than just a post like this.
* Consider getting it up on Game Courier on the CV site, so you can have
people to playtest it with.

Heraclitus: Method for balancing uneven sides, muttators and variants..[Subject Thread] [Add Response]
Rich Hutnik wrote on Wed, Apr 25, 2012 12:20 AM UTC:
What I believe is an important thing to keep in mind, when looking at
solutions, is to realize that solutions don't always fit every context. 
What I wrote about here doesn't guarantee to fit everything, but I do
believe it can fit a number of places.

In regards to what is discussed here, I hope what is described can be
recognized at least as a skill players can develop and test.  This skill is
the ability to evaluate and create situations that work to their advantage.
 The pie rule approach ends up providing a means to have this happen in, in
a way that would be in control of players.

Ok, let's apply the pie rule idea I have, modified, towards your game, For
the Crown.  As it is now, players would randomize what cards they have in
the game.  How about we consider the following:  One player gives a list of
X number of cards they don't want to see used.  The other player then
comes up with the cards they want the game configured, and the other player
then picks what side they want to be.

Idea here is you end up thinning down things and try to reach a state that
is agreeable to both players to play, even if it would give one player an

As for said to hand the problem off to other people to solve, I believe a
solution is superior if it is fluid and adjust, rather than a fixed
solution.  In short, if the solution is a framework able to handle what
players do, it is superior.

Again, to sum up, there are often multiple solutions for play balancing. 
Here I list a number of them:

* Have players bid for sides, using the bidding as a mechanism to give the
weaker sides and advantage, or handicap the stronger side. This bidding is
a game unto itself of sorts, and challenges players to evaluate sides.
* Have players play all sides and evaluate the differences in how the sides
were played. 
* Play the game teams and use a duplicate format. In games with luck, like
cardgames like Bridge on a tournament level, to account for the inherit
unfairness of the luck, they use a duplicate format where the same
conditions pass around and players play them all and they are evaluated.
Unlike the last idea, where individuals play all sides, this is done team
* Fixed handicapping of one side, by giving it less resources or time to
play, or one side to count a draw as a minor victory.
* Use the pie rule. In this option, one player configures the game
conditions and the other player(s) then pick what side they want to play.
This also provides a game of sorts, where you try to figure out what would
be fairest in set up, and then decide what is the best options.

Draw=win scoring[Subject Thread] [Add Response]
Rich Hutnik wrote on Wed, Apr 25, 2012 12:10 AM UTC:
As it is now, draws are draws.  People thought maybe to evaluate positions
and value of pieces left or material captured as a tiebreaking mechanism. 
But now, it isn't that.  One way that might be best, if wanted secondary
scoring, is to go with time on clock left, with player with more time after
draw state is left, meeting the secondary win condition.

Heraclitus: Method for balancing uneven sides, muttators and variants..[Subject Thread] [Add Response]
Rich Hutnik wrote on Sun, Apr 22, 2012 09:13 PM UTC:
The balancing I am referring to is offsetting weaknesses intrinsic in a
side in a game, NOT the skill level of the players.  The approach is to
give the players an abilities to adjust the game configuration so it is
more fair, in a way that requires a player to factor things in.  Because
the approach requires multiple rounds to be played, both players have a
chance to try to balance things.

That is the idea here, not as some sort of handicapping.

Rich Hutnik wrote on Sat, Apr 21, 2012 08:22 PM UTC:
If a game is faced with uncertainty in knowing what side has an advantage,
and the only way to evaluate is based on skill of the players in the game,
why not turn this aspect into a game element itself?  Why is there a
problem with having a game more clearly differentiate between the two
players in the game, in a way that is measured by skill, as opposed to

Rich Hutnik wrote on Fri, Apr 20, 2012 04:46 AM UTC:
Why I disagree here is this: The pie rule drives someone to make the pie
slices as even as possible, which is what you want to do when trying to
balance.  It isn't a solution to guarantee there will be balance, BUT it
does make for a game within a game, that makes trying more interesting.

Rich Hutnik wrote on Thu, Apr 19, 2012 04:37 AM UTC:
This was discussed and put up on Boardgame Geek, as a game to demonstrate
the concept.  The game is: 
Heraclitus: The Meta Game.  Rules are here:

The heart of the concept is this.  A version of the pie rule is applied. 
One player sets up the game, with possibly unbalanced sides, and list of
mutators and so on, and the player's opponent decides what side to play.

Multiple rounds could go on, with each side being the one who sets up
initial conditions and rules for what mutators are in effect and so on.

Draw=win scoring[Subject Thread] [Add Response]
Rich Hutnik wrote on Thu, Apr 19, 2012 04:32 AM UTC:
Draw costing both sides .5 point can work if playing with a larger pool of
players.  If it comes down to the final two players playing for points, or
like in the world championship, it isn't going to gain much doing this.

Rich Hutnik wrote on Thu, Apr 19, 2012 04:29 AM UTC:
Basic idea is this.  One player feels the game is going to end in a draw,
so they grab draw rights.  If the game ends in a draw, or they win, they
get half the points they normally wound for a win (their opponent gets
none).  If their opponent actually wins the game after doing this, their
opponent gets 1.5 points for the win (and the player who grabbed draw
rights gets nothing).

You do not want to grab draw rights if there is a chance to win, because
you cost yourself half your normal score, plus give your opponent more
points if they win.+

[Subject Thread] [Add Response]
Rich Hutnik wrote on Sun, Mar 25, 2012 02:45 AM UTC:
Original post edited.  Apparently I meant to add that in the revised
scoring no points would be scored if a player lost, but messed it up

Rich Hutnik wrote on Fri, Mar 23, 2012 05:14 PM UTC:
I wish the subject header could be longer, to be able to label this

Anyhow, the basic idea here came out of pondering a game situation where a
player isn't able to win by normal means.  In short, they see a game is
heading towards a draw.  Pondering this, I came up with an idea, which is
simplified below:

Assume that normal FIDE Chess scoring applies initially.  A player would
normally score 1 point for a win and 1/2 point for a draw (none for a loss).  

The idea for the tweak is that a player, if they feel that they won't
win, but game will go for a draw state, is to end up (at the end of the
turn) declare that they see this first.  At this point, the scoring in the
game would be that if the player declaring this wins or draws, they get 
1/2 point.  If they lose the game, their opponent gets 1 1/2 points.  

One can also give one player a 1/10 point advantage for a draw (their
opponent gets none), before some player declares this.

The idea here is to accommodate what is normally a draw in a game, in a way
that is interesting.  I am up for discussions of any tweaks for this.  An
idea I had (to complicate things) is that a player could vary what it is
worth (in 1/10 increments) for a draw.

Comments are welcomed here.

Goodchess. Missing description (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Rich Hutnik wrote on Fri, Mar 23, 2012 05:05 PM UTC:
I notice the board layout. I had done Near Chess awhile back based on that. I found out that Skirmish Chess done before on here that followed that. I was wondering if the idea for the layout came from either of these, or were your own idea.

Corner Chess. Two or four player chess variant on 8 by 8 board with pieces starting in the corners. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
💡📝Rich Hutnik wrote on Mon, Sep 26, 2011 07:01 PM UTC:
I have pondered how the heck to do a 3 player variant that works on an 8x8 board that would be also fair.

Connect Shoot KillA game information page
. A mix of dots and boxes with chess pieces.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Rich Hutnik wrote on Sun, Sep 25, 2011 12:35 AM UTC:
I found the link worked, but the email address bounced.  I tried to send this as a message:

I am a bit confused about the set up regarding Connect Shoot Kill.  Is the only set up available the print out?  If so, then I was curious what the role of the Joker and Wizard are.

Second, I see that the game is on Boardgame Geek:

I don't see a link to the rules page you have up.  I was thinking you may want to update that entry with a link to your blogspot site.

Lastly, in trying to understand the game rules, I thought of maybe an idea for a variant that would be doable using chess set that might work (needs to be tweaked).  Have players have their own set. Once they create a box, they put one of their pieces in and can kill opponent's pieces that are on the board as they place it, along the lines of what you had.  Pardon me if your rules are close to this, and it is spelled out.

[Subject Thread] [Add Response]
Rich Hutnik wrote on Thu, Sep 22, 2011 06:38 PM UTC:
Jeremy, please get For the Crown on here, if it isn't yet.  Also, PLEASE
get blank counters and cards available, and let's get a user community
chatting about the game.  I want it to succeed.  For the Crown has a lot of
potential behind it.

I would also suggest a variant to address concerns some may have about the
randomization of units and actions through shuffling.  Consider the variant
where discard deck is flipped over once played through and not shuffled. 
Players could also initially stack their own decks, if they preferred.

25 comments displayed

Later Reverse Order EarlierEarliest

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.