Game Reviews by flowermann
A nice way to play 3-player game on rectangular board (a bit artifical, but still; I mean, artifical as invented to play on rectangular board, while as itself, topologically, it's quite natural). Also there is a good unusual choice of pieces, interesting special for this board. And a cube rule have special feeling at 3-player game. "This draught, with promotion, is taken from the version of draughts I grew up with; I am aware that it is different from the better known one played hereabouts" - interestingly, where are you from?
In European Chess there are logical and worthy pieces. In Xiang-Qi there are resonable and harmonical positions of pieces, though elephants and ferzes are even weaker.
In comparision with these games, at first sight Chaturanga looks clumsy, with very random pieces, with elephants, chaotically dangling in 8 squares each.
But actually, after a few tries to play this game, you'll see some harmony in it...
But i love, how it plays with standart diagonal moves as well.
However, i would not allow them to make "flying" move, once they attacked by opponent (generals in shogi can't flee such easily).
A little behindhand addition to the discussion of the headuarters capturing capabilities. Joe Joyce made quite logical assumption that headquarters was able to capture. But there is a following question: what are it's capturing limitations? I also heard opinion that headquarters was not able to capture, because in this case it's supposed that it can capture any piece, but Yurgelevich tried to make this game as realistic as possible for chess-like game, and commander can't be "Rambo with bazooka". My own assumption: headquarters can capture with same limitations as infantry (can't capture the tank). But in this case another question follows: does it capture only in same directions as soldiers, and can it make double move on white squares? Since rule about double step is said only about infantry, while about headquarters it's only said that it can move as king, it's logical that it can move as king only. But on the other hand - double step rule probably implied that some places in real live (especially in war conditions) have more practicable paths or better transport connection than the others. So, why headquarters can't use same ways, if this game is that realistic?
1. I bet, the game's goal is to put all your pieces in a row (wich logically comes from the game's name)? 2. If two pieces are captured, is dropping the only legal move, or rule that at least three pieces must be dropped appliles only for initial placement?
Looks very interesting. I made preset, who want to try? /play/pbm/play.php?game%3DPatricia%26settings%3DPatricia
I did not played it yet, but idea is very interesting! I was thining of hexagonal game with similar pieces, good that i have read this page before posting it!
It's certainly much more logical than Wellisch chess and it's good place for pawns from Glinsky chess. It's alternative variant of 'standart' hexagonal pieces. The only advantage of McCooey chess is that bishops are colorbound and knights are colorswitching.
The only thing that i can't understand: Korean elephant (zebra) analogue is sennight. If i'm right, sennights are knights from Glinsky-McCooey chess. Zebra analogue should have only half of sennight's moves, while other half is camel analogue. And full sennight is, of course, bison analogue. On this diagram i marked zebra analogue's moves with 'z' and camel analogue's moves with 'c':
________________ ___/ . \___ ________________ ____________ ___/ . \___/ . \___ ____________ ________ ___/ . \___/ . \___/ . \___ ________ ____ ___/ . \___/ . \___/ . \___/ . \___ ____ ___/ . \___/ . \___/ . \___/ . \___/ . \___ / . \___/ . \___/ c \___/ c \___/ . \___/ . \ \___/ . \___/ z \___/ . \___/ z \___/ . \___/ / . \___/ . \___/ . \___/ . \___/ . \___/ . \ \___/ . \___/ . \___/ . \___/ . \___/ . \___/ / . \___/ z \___/ . \___/ . \___/ z \___/ . \ \___/ . \___/ . \___/ x \___/ . \___/ . \___/ / . \___/ c \___/ . \___/ . \___/ c \___/ . \ \___/ . \___/ . \___/ . \___/ . \___/ . \___/ / . \___/ . \___/ . \___/ . \___/ . \___/ . \ \___/ . \___/ c \___/ . \___/ c \___/ . \___/ / . \___/ . \___/ z \___/ z \___/ . \___/ . \ \___/ . \___/ . \___/ . \___/ . \___/ . \___/ ____\___/ . \___/ . \___/ . \___/ . \___/____ ________\___/ . \___/ . \___/ . \___/________ ____________\___/ . \___/ . \___/____________ ________________\___/ . \___/________________ ____________________\___/____________________
Am i right or not?
Actually, representation is everything. For example, look at my game 'Square and hex on same board' - http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSsquareandhexon or at this (zzo38) A. Black's comment about 1-dimensional games - http://www.chessvariants.org/index/displaycomment.php?commentid=25177 But i'm going to post another petagonal variant now, wich is more different from hexagonal variants, each 'square' have 5 orthogonally-adjecent 'squares'.
I played similar variant, but with 2 differences: 1. Kings must be dropped on first moves. 2. Pawns may be dropped anywhere, expect 1st and 8th ranks. Another variant, i can suggest (i did not played it yet): Pawns have same defination of forward. This one may be played with 3 players. Actually, with any number of players, from 2 to 16. For multiplayer variant, rules for capturing/mating king and pieces of lost player must be chosen before playing, many variants are possible.
Oops! I'm sorry! I have read rules not carefully at first time: in my variant each player had draughts only on 1 color. Your variant, where each player have draughts on both colors is playable, i played it! And, i think, this idea must be developed: if chess variants are not very popular, checkers variants (take-me checkers, for example) are popular. By the way, how about allowing to capture sideways (like in Turkish/Armenian orthogonal checkers)?
I like this idea. I can see one problem in Xiang-qi variant: tank can capture queen on first turn without being captured on next. Also, i don't like that in Xiang-qi there is jumping wildbeest: what the problem with non-jumping variant of it? Non-jumping camel move must be 2 steps orthogonally and when 1 diagonally outward. Interesting, that if play chess in this way, game will start with 5 queens. There is another idea: instead of being compound with piece of corresponding direction, original pieces simply changes to these corresponding pieces. Or each piece changes after each move in this way: rook (knight) - bishop (camel) - queen (wildbeest) or only rook (knight) - bishop (camel). Or, after each move all pieces changes (in one of same orders).
18 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.
I have to comment it for having simple yet original rules, promising a good entertainment, perhaps even well commercially-sold.