Check out Glinski's Hexagonal Chess, our featured variant for May, 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 Travis Z

Later Reverse Order Earlier
Xiangqi vs Orthodox Chess. Missing description (9x9, Cells: 77) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
💡📝Travis Z wrote on Fri, Mar 18, 2011 02:19 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
You stated, '1) Which side moves first? Assuming that the Chinese side moves first, he
'1. Cannon {either} - F3! CHECKMATE!'

2) Your rules say that the Chess King cannot be seen by the Chinese
General. Is this
a) only along the forward orthogonal?
b) along all four orthogonals?
c alng all orthogonals and all diagonals?'

First your first point about checkmate is wrong.  Actually study the variant before making a response.  If the cannon takes either knight the other player can simply move the rook and get out of check.  THERE IS NO CHECKMATE POSSIBLE ON THE FIRST MOVE.

As for your second point.  I mentioned how that rule is the same as in regular Chinese Chess.  Read the regular rules first to understand.  The King does not move diagonallys in Chinese Chess.  So option 'C' is gone.  Now as for options 'A' or 'B' the Chinese Chess rules state that there always has to be a piece between Kings, as the King could theortically move as a Chariot or Rook and take the other King.  So by some simple logic that puts it at option 'B'.

Back on the first point.  I do not need to say who moves first.  Play as you like.  I do not have to specify that as it is not necessary to game play.  Would you like me to post you out all sorts of thousands of game plays?

From here on out, I will not even respond to comments which are unfounded or ill thought through.

Expanded Chinese Chess. Missing description (9x12, Cells: 108) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
💡📝Travis Z wrote on Sat, Feb 26, 2011 05:05 AM UTC:
Just to make a few things known:
1. I am not going to go into massive amounts of detail on the pieces because all one needs to know is how they move and capture.  Beyond that it is up to the players to determine the strategies and uses.  If I provide more info on the pieces, it takes away from the game.  Just take a look at Western Chess, and Chinese Chess.  All that is listed is the rules.  Sure people write and publish books on the game, but what is necessary for the game is the rules, anything above and beyond that is something in and of itself.  I am not writing a thesis on this thing, unless doing so gets me a degree or something.

2. This was my first published variant on this site.  I doubt anyone was perfect their first time.  Pratice makes perfect, and a lot of my time went into figuring out how to use HTML coding to make it look half way decent and presentable.  In the end, I only have so many hours in a day.  I am not an English major or expert.  

Comments are a good way of explaining stuff and showing stuff.  It lets one better formulate ideas and concepts into words.

On the submission thing, it would be nice if this site gave you the option on when you wanted to make the page live.  That way I could have waited a few days, came back and proof read what I put down.  That is what I do when I write academic papers.

💡📝Travis Z wrote on Wed, Feb 23, 2011 02:34 AM UTC:
I will not be adding the chinese symbols for two reasons:
1. It adds nothing to the game in terms of game play value.  It only adds looks.
2. I am not going to spend lots of time figuring out the chinese symbols.  If you would like them, figure them out yourself.  I do not get paid for doing this and my life is busy as it is.

I can see that there are mixed reviews of the game, some good and some negative.  I cannot make everyone happy, so as I say good enough.  Time will tell how good it turns out.  With a couple thousand plays, I might be ready to make Version 2, but until then this is it.

💡📝Travis Z wrote on Tue, Feb 22, 2011 03:15 AM UTC:
I do not know Chinese. I do not know how to read it or speak it. So I cannot create a diagram with it. If someone would like to help out and provide me with one, that would be great.

💡📝Travis Z wrote on Tue, Feb 22, 2011 02:03 AM UTC:
First thanks for all the comments.

To clarify some more stuff since it comes up in the comments but seems like has already been answered.

Dragons can jump.  They cannot be blocked.  If they could not jump, then they would be limited too much.  Dragons can actually do a lot of stuff.  They can protect the center of the back row, plus the sides.  They can protect the pawns on the sides (Protecting the Flanks).  They can also protect a little bit in the center.  Combine them with the Elpehants and you can basically protect all of the pawns.

The Javelins or as some people like to say Bishops can cross the river.  There is no restriction mentioned.  Why I do not call them bishops is because of three reasons.  First there are no bishops in China, in the old days of Western chess, during the medievil period bishops only moved two spots diagonally and were basically the same as the elephants in Chinese Chess.  And two because in this version of chess, the pieces can only go to half of the board, and can actually protect one another.

The horse can actually escape from the Javelins since it can go to all of the spots on the board.  The horse really has no exact need to read the back rows.

As for the piece values.  I am not too concerned about what the new worths are.  Having played the regular game a lot (Regular Chinese Chess) I have seen a lot of victories in which a player has won with very little and the other player has taken a lot of pieces.  A lot has to do with position and timing.  Who cares if you lose a lot of pieces but win the game anyways.  It is still a win.

As for the computer, I am not a programmer and would never be able to program something to figure it out.  There are lots of different openings.  Besides in the Eastern tradition of thought, gaming playing is part of daily life and it does not matter who wins or loses, the point of playing a game is to exercise your mind and to try different things.  Sure there could be someone who always wins or wins most of the time, but never really learns something, while someone else tries new opening moves and different stratiges and actually learns something.

As for the rook being able to get in the back row.  Well that makes defending the back row now something to consider.  I have yet really come across an actual human game in which someone was able to get in the back row and actually do something with it.  Generally by the time a person was able to do this, the game was more or less over.  I would have to play it more and see if it comes up or not.  If it does there would be simple solutions to fix it.

💡📝Travis Z wrote on Sun, Feb 20, 2011 11:04 PM UTC:
M Winther states, 'The expanded palace removes most of the traditional mating methods. The elbow horse check is rendered almost useless. The standard cannon mate on the last rank (when the king is surrounded by the mandarins) doesn't exist anymore.'

The palace is not bigger.  Where does it say that it is?  The palace is still the same size.  There is just extra row behind the palace.  So the horse checkmate can happen just as much.  All of the same checkmate possibilities still exist.

M Winther states, 'The added bishops can probably not compensate for this as both bishops move on the same diagonal colour, and the opponent's bishops move on the other diagonal colour. As a result the opponents control half of the squares each, a questionable circumstance. So there is no real bishop pair.'

Chinese Chess is supposed to be symmetrical, having pieces not symmetrical would destroy the balance of the board.  You still checkmate with a Javelin, and you can create a stalemate, which is the same as winning.  In addition, this is not western chess so I really have no concern to create bishops.  They are not bishops anyways, and are intended to be bishops in the exact same sense as that of western chess.

M Winther states, 'The horse is even weaker now on this longer board, and the dragon is almost useless.'

How is the horse weaker?  It still has the same powers it had before.  It does not take it any longer to reach the other side.  Saying that something is weaker and proving that it is are two different things.

The dragon is supposed to be weak.  Each defensive unit in Chinese Chess gets weaker as you move out from the palace.  They have a use, just like the elephants and other pieces.  It is how you use them that makes them effective or not.

M Winther states, 'A rook is even stronger, probably worth three horses. A
bishop is probably worth almost two horses.'

Proof please.  The 'bishop' you call cannot be worth more than a horse, it only controls half the points on the board while the horse can get to every point.

M Winther states, 'I suspect this game is much more drawish than Xaingqi as it is not easy to invade the squares controlled by the opponent's bishops (and which cannot be controlled with one's own bishops). I suspect mate is much more difficult to achieve.'

It is not any more chance of a draw than in the traditional.  Just because there are new pieces does not mean that there are not new ways to get the job done.  As with standard Chinese Chess, you really only need one piece plus your king to get at least a stalemate or checkmate depending on what piece you have left.  The same still applies.

💡📝Travis Z wrote on Sun, Feb 20, 2011 04:58 PM UTC:
Thanks for the comments.  I have tried rewording it and making changes to make it more clear.

The reason why the Dragon cannot kill another one, because they never meet up on the same spaces.  If one player is black and the other white, the white's dragons never have the option of even being able to take a black dragon.  It is just impossible.  It is similar to that one's elephants cannot take another's elephants.  It is 'physically' impossible in a sense.

As for having a better diagram for the board.  I am going to see what I can do for that.  I am still new to this submission thing, and when I get some free time, I will see about getting a better diagram in so that it is easier to see and understand.

Chess Variant Pages Membership. Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Travis Z wrote on Thu, Feb 17, 2011 09:50 PM UTC:
Thank you Joe Joyce. When I get some free time, I will see about filling out the forms for contributing my variant to this wonderful site. Thanks.

Travis Z wrote on Thu, Feb 17, 2011 05:49 AM UTC:
I am also having the problem of being able to submit something to the site. It will not let me add a variant as my name is not in the pull down list.

Xiangqi: Chinese Chess. Links and rules for Xiangqi (Chinese Chess). (9x10, Cells: 90) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Travis Z wrote on Wed, Feb 16, 2011 05:32 AM UTC:
A very nice well put page. However my only minor remark would be that the there is not a western symbol on the page for the chariot. I see the rook which is the same thing, but it does not have the same feeling. I remember growing up and always seeing a picture of a chariot on the piece.

10 comments displayed

Later Reverse Order Earlier

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.