Comments by graeme

It might be quite interesting to design a hexagonal intersection-based equivalent applying Rule 50 - though I think the hexagons would need to be divided into triangles by joining opposite corners, thus giving 6 directions from each intersection.

I must admit that checkers had not been in my thoughts when considering chess-type games and you may be right about the weird outcome. Again though, I think it would be interesting to attempt the design applying Rule 50.

Mats, thanks for the improvement suggestion - I've added the 'move-priorities' directive, updated the version to 2.1, and revised the zip file. Thanks again
--
Graeme

Hi Joe - Warchess is already taken I think! ;O)
What about Chessgaming?
I am wondering how far Chess can be pushed towards Wargaming without losing the essential Chess features you list. The wargaming areas where Fortress seems a bit light are melee and missiles. I'm currently exploring the possibility in my own designs of replacing the chess 'replacement capture' with a Diplomacy like melee phase where captures result from non-random assessment of a pieces attack/support. Such a system would also enable the introduction of missile pieces that can attack/support from a distance (possibly needing a screen as with the Cannon?).
As for the initial set-up I think mimicking a traditional ancient wargame battle array with a line of skirmishers backed by central infantry and cavalry wings might be worth exploring. And maybe a central fortress?
Another, as yet totally undeveloped idea, is the introduction of 'terrain' via offboard multi-cell static pieces dropped prior to the first proper movement phase.
And I just couldn't resist the invite - even though I'm a pretty poor chess player and an even worse ancient wargamer.

I agree, at least in part. Removing either or both is probably necessary to prevent Scrabblization, but may not be sufficient.

I would guess, though, that their removal would prove sufficient as I suspect the causes of Scrabble's Scrabblization are not to be found in Chess.

I grant you that the donkey may have certain strengths when compared to a horse: sure-footedness; endurance; intelligence; but not swiftness. However, I find it impossible to imagine a donkey being capable of standing, let alone moving, if asked to carry a fully armoured knight weighing 200 pounds or more.

Even the horse was unequal to the task, leading to the breeding of the great horse or destrier for use by knights in battle or tourney.

You are quite correct, this formula applies only to 2D-square boards. I have tried to generalize it here

A result of this suggested classifcation is an assignment of an objective size-category or size-index number. The descriptions, on the other hand are subjective. Thus an 8x8-2d-squared-cell board is classified as a category-3 sized board - whether you want to describe category-3 boards as small, standard, or maybe even glè mhòr¹ is entirely a matter of persional preference.

1. very big

'Mage - Since Magi is plural, it doesn't seem quite appropriate. But I like the name Mage quite a bit.'

My mistake - of course the name should be singular - and I also like Mage a fair bit, certinly preferring it to the other possible singular of Magus. The soft 'g' sounds so much better.

Again let me ask for the avoidance of judgemental terms. I am happy for variant A to be described as 'more drawish' than variant B, but feel that the jump from such a statement to the judgement 'variant A is inferior to variant B' is unsupported. The most that can be said is that 'variant B is to be preferred to variant A if you dislike drawn games'

My apologies, I should learn not to post during a sleepless night. I reacted (over-reacted?) to your statement 'Should one really waste energy studying an inferior variant?', without paying due attention to the context.

I also opt for a voting method of judging, that way no-one need be excluded from entering. I would suggest each entrant should pick 3 games ordered 1st,2nd,3rd - 1st gets 3 points, 2nd 2, 3rd 1.

Additional theme suggestions:
- incomplete knowledge
- no FIDE pieces (including King)
- winning condition other than mate

I also support Abdul-Rahman Sibahi's suggestion of having a confined King (or other Royal piece)

Might I alsso suggest a contest with more than one theme? Say have 3 themes e.g. one Piece based (no FIDE pieces say), another special Criteria/Rule based (restricted King, say), and the third Conceptual (sci-fi/fantasy)

Each contestant could then enter any or all themes with the same or different games and have a vote in each theme entered. The theme winners would then be voted on by all contestants other than the theme winners to decide the overall winner.

I'll try...
Suppose the contest has three themes - call them t1 t2 and t3. Each contestant may enter a game in each theme. This could be a different game for each theme (contestant designs 3 games) or a single game thst meets the conditions of all 3 themes (contestant designs 1 game that is entered into t1 t2 and t3) - or somewhere in between (designs 2 games, one for entry in t1 and t2, the other for t3). Of course a contestant does not have to enter all 3 themes - they may just design 1 game for entry in a single theme (t2 say).

Within each theme those contestants entered in that theme will vote for a theme winner (see my other comment on a suggested voting system). Of course you may NOT vote for your own design.
The theme winners will then participate in a second vote by all the contestants apart from those winning the theme, to determine an overall contest winner

3 more suggestions:

• Simultaneous moves
• Incorporate non-chess gaming element(s) - e.g. dice, cards, quiz questions, gaming chips
• Boundless boards e.g. Circular, Toroidal, Spherical

I take it that, in line with previous n-square design contests, the term square is to be interpreted as meaning cell, and is not meant to exclude, for example, hex, trig or multi-dimension based boards?

Joe, I've had a quick look at my calcs again -

• Q = 11.508
• T = 10.297

'...:The most successful chess variants were invented by people who did not care if they would become rich or famous with their variant;...'

Sam, much as I would like this CV-Catch-22 to be true, I'm afraid we have no proof that it is. The fact of our present ignorance is no guide to the motives of the inventors of the past. We cannot even be sure that they were not rich and well-known in their day since wealth and fame are at best fickle and fleeting friends.

Cheeers
Graeme

Perhaps the best games aren't invented; maybe they just evolve.

I'd always thought the main idea behind the pawn positioning was to have them start the game equi-distant from a promotion hex.

'Topological equivalence also does not lead to equivalence in game-mechanics.'

Create a piece whose move is defined as:

a series of steps away from the starting cell exiting each cell via a short side.

Such a piece can be moved on the Penturanga board but not on the topologically equivalent hex-board.

'...the fact remains that Penturanga is just a funny-looking hexagonal chess variant.'

I'm afraid that is not a fact, it is, like mine, just an opinion - so may we just agree to differ?

Cheers
Graeme

Your example piece is a red herring.

My example piece may well be called a herring, red or otherwise, but it illustrates that topological equivalence, though necessary, is not sufficient for game equivalence. That having been said, I agree that for the pieces actually used in Penturanga there is game equivalence between the pentagonal and the hexagonal boards.

... but this is a mathematical problem with a definitive answer.

Exactly! A square has 4 sides, a hexagon has 6 sides, a triangle 3 sides, and a pentagon 5 sides. A board with 6-sided cells is termed hexagonal, so surely it is correct to term a board with 5-sided cells pentagonal?

Cheers
Graeme

Joe,
just sent you an email.

Cheers
Graeme

1. Tell me where you can acquire the pieces to do this? Saying, 'Well we can make our own' isn't something someone you introduce the game to, will actually do

The future of chess, I suspect, is on computers and the internet within the virtual cyber-realms created by software. Any initial lack of physical pieces should not hinder the popularity of a variant.

2. If people thing adding two pieces between queen and rook level is too powerful, how is having a rook fly down to the other side and promote, and the other pieces going to not be overpowered?

Surely a Rook promoted to RN is a less powerful outcome than a Rook and newly dropped RN ?

3. Is the main concern 'congestion'? ...

The main concern is surely playability? Unless a variant plays well it is unlikely to gain a following, however well it is promoted.

I will say the point about gating is that it is a useful way to integrate new pieces into older games. As is promotion.

If you don't happen to like it, or anything drop related, you are forcing chess to follow the same way it has always been, that being fixed positions

I am not forcing chess into anything, merely suggesting a way for using RN and BN within an 8x8 board. Besides, neither 'drop' nor 'promote' will change the fixed nature of the starting position. The only solution to that is to introduce non-determinism.

I seem to be in both pools?

Joe, I've hooked it into the Welcome page (page name start).

The quickest way to find the name of a page is to go to that page and then look in you browser's address bar - the text after the final '/' is the page's name.

My games:

• TriMac HexChess
• Modern Courier Chess
• Save the Standard 13x13

That's everyone named their initial set of games - the full list is here

An as yet unpublished preset for TriMac HexChess is available here

Changed my games

Replacing TriMac HexChess

with

Circular Chess with Crooked Bishops and Queen

Carlos, I can view the games but cannot play them. The userid seems to be grayhawke2 - it should be just grayhawke, without the 2.

Cheers
G.

Carlos, I don't mind creating a new userid, but am not sure how that helps. Can't the games be reassigned to grayhawke?

Following Michael Nelson's suggestions, I have attempted to further clarify the losing scenarios.

Although I have altered stalemate from a draw to a loss (a personal preference), in line with my second design aim 3-fold repetition remains a draw.

The code is in a zip file here.

Not sure how clear it is but I'll try to answer any questions you may have. Basically it uses a transparent image that overlays the board as an input type in a form that returns a set of co-ordinates.

Thanks for the info and pointer to MaxQi. I've downloaded the source for MaxQi - if I get anywhere with adapting the code I'll make the source available on my magpies site.

I feel the board may be a tad small, and think increasing it to 6 hex on a side might be better. Also the problems with the rooks could be resolved by moving them to the back rank and turning them into crowned-rooks (dragon kings). To complement these and to complete the second row I've added a couple of crowned-knights (centaurs). Here's my suggestion.

Thanks for the input Jeremy. I've adopted your berolina pawns and leo - and also have increased the board size further - to produce these 2 related variants, described more fully here.