[ 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 Uri BruckLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ Earlier Attendance Chess. 10 piece types that can move to 10 squares each, mostly. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Uri Bruck wrote on 2005-07-07 UTCGood ★★★★I'm not going to go all math and discuss what learning curves are or what they should be. I played this game face-to-face, and I found it very easy to learn, play, and enjoy. Usually it takes me awhile to learn games with many different piece types, especialy when many of the pieces are combo-pieces, or extermely powerful pieces. I can probably conjecture until the sun comes as to why I found this game relatively easy to learn. Could be the simple patterns of the legal moves of the pieces, or the fact that even some of the 'new' pieces are minor variants of existing pieces. Could be the ASCII art for all I know. The thing is, I found it easy to learn. Uri Bruck wrote on 2005-05-06 UTCThat previous comments was by me. Pawn Less Chess. New pieces, no pawns, and 20 squares removed from the 8 by 8 board. (8x8, Cells: 44) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Uri Bruck wrote on 2004-08-08 UTCInitially I added the special move as an aid in development. It gets the short range pieces out there quickly, and being non-capturing, they get a little extra power, but not enough to topple the board. This addition was the big leap during development. The move can also come in useful later, and towards the end game it become less significant as there are fewer pieces to jump over. Something similar was suggested to me during development. I don't think it would add much to this particular game, however, I think it's something I might adopt on a larger board. Uri Bruck wrote on 2004-07-17 UTCI discovered an omission in my description of the non-capturing leaping move for the Wazir and Ferz. It was my intent that they should only be able to leap over a friendly adjacent Ferz or Wazir. Thus, the paragraph describing this move should read: ' The additional non-capturing move is the same for both pieces: A LeapingFerz or a LeapingWazir, may leap over an orthogonally adjacent friendly LeapingWazir to the next square, provided it's unoccupied. A LeapingFerz or a LeapingWazir may leap over a diagonally adjacent friendly LeapingFerz to the next square, provided it's empty. ' The Zillions implementation plays this move correctly Uri Bruck wrote on 2004-05-08 UTCI didn't encounter that problem Nahbi Chess. Variant on 10 by 10 board with equator, Nahbi's and Archers. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Uri Bruck wrote on 2004-01-29 UTC Tridimensional Chess (Star Trek). Three-dimensional chess from Star Trek. (x7, Cells: 64) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Uri Bruck wrote on 2003-07-14 UTCExcellent ★★★★★Hi, For rules written by Anderw Bartmess, same person who wrote them for the Poster Book, look here: http://www.grigor.org/startrek.htm Cross-Eyed Chess. Two player variant on cross-shaped board. (12x12, Cells: 84) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Uri Bruck wrote on 2002-12-11 UTCThe quote from Double King Chess looks like a good description of checkmating both kings simultaneously. Uri Bruck wrote on 2002-12-10 UTCHello Dan, First, thank you for taking the time to do the Zillions implementation. I'll start with your first question: 'It seems to me that if the second King can be checkmated, it can never be captured. Are there circumstances in which the remaining King can be captured?' If a single king is checkmated, it means that there is no legal move to take it out of check, however 'The king is the standard chess king, with the exception that it may be moved into check, and it may be captured.' It's ok for the checkmated player to make another move that will leave the king in check, and then the king will be captured on the next turn. At first it might not seem to make sense to allow a king to move into check, and if you have just one left, it doesn't. Even if you have both of them it's still not a great move, unless it happens to be a winning move - a move that checkmates the other player. With two kings vs. one, the situation could arise. So capturing one king and checkmating the other is really the same as capturing both kings, checkmating the second just means the second capture is inevitable. If it's easy to code this, fine, if not, then that's fine too, because it amounts to the same thing. As for the third win condition, I haven't done any Zillions programming, although I've read the manual and some code. Without seeing the code it's difficult to answer. Perhaps the best answer I can give is that I prefer people to playtest the game as it was submitted, but if you think it would impact the AI, you can implement it one way, and then add the other implementation as a variant. Then even if the AI in the 'official' version is weakened, people can still playtest that version playing one another on-line. Alfil. Jumps two diagonally (see Alfil).[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Uri Bruck wrote on 2002-09-10 UTCGood ★★★★When names move from one language to another, then articles like the definite article sometimes just stick to them. I've seen quite a few place names in the south of Spain, for instance, that have names beginign with 'Al-', obviously the Arabic definite article. 'Alfil' is the name the piece acquired in Europe. The fact that the text mentions it is good enough. The Arabic 'fil' is also related to the Hebrew 'pil', which can be found in the Mishna, dating back to the first couple of centuries C.E., and which the Even-Shoshan Hebrew dictionary traces back to teh Akkadian 'pilu'. The chess piece was obviously named for the Arabic word. Ackanomic PartyChess. Multiplayer chess inside a `Nomic' game.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Uri Bruck wrote on 2002-06-30 UTCThis page gives a description of the original rules of the game. Since it was only played within the context of a nomic game 'lasting forever' was not an issue at first. Later ammendments did provide for winning conditions. 11 comments displayedLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ EarlierPermalink to the exact comments currently displayed.