[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Game Reviews by joejoyce
This is a truly twisted game, extremely well put together. The pieces and rules create a high tension and a fine, unique dynamic. I particularly enjoy the pawn play. A+; thanks for a great game.
This looks like a very interesting game. It should be much faster playing than shatranj, given the coupling of a great increase in the number of long-range pieces with the forward setup. Could get some fierce shoot-outs with this setup. Some basic numbers: Shatranj FIDE Mir # non-royal pieces 7 7 9 # short-range 5 2 4 # long-range 2 5 5 So, while shatranj and Fide are opposites, Mir matches FIDE for long-range pieces and all 4 short-range Mir pieces are jumpers. But, while the rooks cancel out, the cannons and superbishop don't quite seem the equal of bishops and queen. They're certainly not quite as easy to use. Still, all other things being equal, I wouldn't want FIDE in a FIDE-Mir 'Chess with Unequal Armies' game. I would love a copy of the zrf when it's done.
This game is a beautiful concept, from the spare beauty of the initial setup to the balancing of the weak piece set with a fairly free piece placement and drops. It is not a game for the faint-hearted. It is probably extremely sensitive to beginning play; certainly you can win or lose quickly in this game. Several layers of play with all their complex choices are built from a few simple ideas in an easy-to-understand game. You've made a maddeningly complex easy-to-understand game. Nice job, Gary.
Nice idea very nicely done. Fine piece choices. Have to rate it excellent.
A very nice balance between chess and Ultima, with a nice twist in goal squares. The capture-by-replacement pieces allow direct assaults on a position but are limited in number and movement capacities and are vulnerable to counter-attack by the Ultima pieces. This is a nice balance of direct and indirect actions, with a 'capture the flag' aspect; a successful fusion of two very unlike games, with style.
A fine game, capable of being played on two levels, a simpler one of pushing whole ships around, and a more difficult one of getting the right pieces into the right ships. Beautifully overcoming the limitations of a small board, it is a big game in a small package. This game is well worth playing. I wish there were an easy way to play it face-to-face. The rules could probably be better written, but they are adequate for the game. I find the idea and the way it plays excellent.
The basic idea of this game is excellent. The geometry of the board is intriguing, and I'm impressed by the cleverness of fiting the board into 100 squares (for the 100 square contest). I, too, have a question on the knight's move, however, prompted by my attempt at an answer to Jeremy's question. I figured this way: - the central squares are not 'really' on board B, they are 'really' on boards A, B, and C, most likely simultaneously but apparently on any level at will. - for the 'dabbabah' move to happen, the knight must move 1 'up' from B to A on the central square on which it starts, then it 'turns 90' and moves 2 across board A to the side, ending between the 2 moves made as if the knight started on board A, move 2 to the side, then turned 90 and moved 1 along the side. Or start the other way and do the same thing on C. However, if that's correct, then the knight can be considered to be on board C to start, move C to B to A on that same central square for the 2 square leg of its move, then turn 90 and move 1 square off the original central square to end. And that would add 4 squares to the knight's move in the diagram, the 2 light squares next to the lower left-hand corner of the boards A and C central holes. So I may not understand this very well.
This is a very nicely twisted variant of chess. A few simple rules changes have produced what is definitely a tournament-quality game. There are only 2 things I could wish for: new graphics for the pieces, and a larger companion. I'd truly love to see seperate realms on a larger board. (Could I be greedy and ask for 12x12?) Congratulations to the designers; they deserve them.
This is an interesting idea. It certainly gives people the opportunity to find out how moderately strong very shortrange pieces do in amongst the standard FIDE mix. The minister and highpriestess would likely be slightly more valuable than rooks here. I believe they'll do quite well. This in some sense 'balances' Capa, giving it 5 longrange and 5 shortrange pieces per side. I expect this will lead to a game with a bit more maneuvering. I'd like to see a game of this between 2 expert players.
Just played [and lost] this delightful game. I found it fast-paced and exciting, with both sides having good opportunities throughout the game. Excellent piece mix, and unusual in that each piece is different. Before I played, I thought that might detract from the game, but I found the 8 different pieces enhanced the game, as did the cannon-pawns. This game is much more direct than Ultima, and less positional and more combinatorial than Maxima. It has very high play value.
This situation is certainly to be expected, and will happen more and more. The total number of chess variants is in the thousands now, and can only go up. In the short time I've been aware of and active in chess variants, I've seen my ideas pop up in other games, and others have seen my games reflect their ideas; all without any previous knowledge on the part of whomever was 2nd [or 3rd...], so we might as well get used to it. As for the royal pawn idea, Jeremy's game I found very interesting - I playtested it with him - but as he says a little gimmicky, as the RP stayed in the line of pawns, blocking a number of pieces. Gary's version is a better chess game; more traditional and a lot easier to figure out just what to do in, but not a better idea. The idea in both, a royal pawn, is an excellent one. The treatments are also good in both; Jeremy's being much quirkier. I don't know which might be considered a better game [not a better chess game, but a better game]; they are so different it is difficult to compare them. Since I'm playing a game now with Gary, I have the opportunity to see just what both are like; others should take the same opportunity. Enjoy.
This is a very interesting-looking game. [You might want to clean up a couple typos, though.] I'd love to know how it plays. It looks like it begins almost in mid-game with the pieces so close; and with a starting piece density of 80%, it's a good thing pieces can only move 1. It's tight; of the 45 squares, only 3 allow a piece its full range of movement. A very tricky piece of design: something necessary if you want a good game with so few squares. You compensate for the limited number of squares by an almost outrageously high starting density, and by having all your pieces move only 1. Radical. You've certainly pushed the game to a limit. Any possible white first move and black reply puts both pieces en prise. Are there forcing moves available to either player that provide an advantage? What is the range of options in this game? I'd really enjoy trying a game of this. If it works, the game as well as the initial concept would be excellent. As someone interested in short-range pieces, I have to commend you on an excellent idea here. You have presented a pretty, almost puzzle-like game. I hope it plays like it looks. [And it's nice to know I'm not the only one with a 45-square chess variant languishing somewhere in a corner, waiting for Hans to get younger.]
A very interesting Modest Variant and comment on things in general. This game gives you a very good reason to castle and put the king into his padded cell fortress, for everyone's protection. Endgames in this could get a little bizarre - love to see some. I don't fully understand the 'move the enemy king into check but not checkmate' rule, though. All in all, a very nice idea.
Ah, of course! Pardon the brain-glitch. The more I think about it, the more I like this game. I think it's an excellent modest variant*: a single, really sneaky idea that should have more and more effect as the game goes on and piece density drops. But even in the beginning, a player has to be careful to not lose control of his or her king. Everything needs to be carefully choreographed to keep the king surrounded and under control at all times. Castling is apparently far more difficult, as once you clear the pieces between the K and R out, your opponent can just move the king 2, blocking the rook into the corner and requiring some serious maneuvering to free it without exposing the king to madness. Is this not true? I might like a few more pieces to keep the king calm; now I see some good use for all those pieces in some large variants... ;-) You might try this in Rennchess or some of the Great chesses. *That's why I've rated it again, this time as a modest variant.
Hi, Andy. I, too, am skeptical that this game has ever been played; I seriously doubt it. That's why I didn't rate it in my first comment. Had I, I would have given it a 'good', because until it's played, a game cannot really be judged, and to me it looks like it would range from average to excellent. On play balance: I think Charles is paying great attention - he doesn't overcrowd the board with pieces like so many big games. That alone indicates a lot [or that, like me, he couldn't come up with any more pieces... :-) ] You say: 'Too many piece types and too many short range mean steep learning curve and long slow game with no sharp tactics.' I also agree there are a lot of piece-types, certainly more than I would normally tend to use. But many of the pieces are forward-only versions of the standard pieces. Even his odd pawn is a forward-only ferz. I don't see much learning curve here. Also, I am familiar with shortrange pieces, and I have to say I think you completely mischaracterize them when you say they give a 'long slow game with no sharp tactics.' To demonstrate my position, I would like to offer to play a number of my own games, all shortrange. Specifically, we could play 2 games each of Great Shatranj, Grand Shatranj, Lemurian Shatranj, Atlantean Barroom Shatranj, and Chieftain Chess. In Great Shatranj [8x10], no piece moves more than 2; in Lemurian [8x8] and Chieftain [12x16], no piece moves more than 3; in Grand [10x10] and Atlantean [10x10], none more than 4. Okay, I'm not completely serious and I'm not really trying to put you on the spot, I'm just trying to win a point in this discussion. But I do want to make 2 serious points: that Charles does have a good sense of design, he just needs to make his games available to be played to refine his designs and prove it; and that shortrange pieces can easily be as good as longrange ones. Heck, a CWDA game on a 10x10 with Grand Chess vs Atlantean Barroom pieces would be a slaughter! ;-) Enjoy. Joe ps: if you wanted to, we could play the games anyway...
Nice piece, very tricky. That it can change color is nice, because I've always found the camel to be a darn awkward piece to use. By the time I got this far in typing this, I found out you'd been anticipated, an all too common occurrence these days. [I saw Michael Howe's comment!] No matter, it's still a good idea, and I'll bet someone can anticipate Mr. Howe. There are a couple statements, one by each of you, that I'd like to discuss in a different spot. M. Howe: 'Leaping-riders can be awkward and unbalancing because of their ability to attack through pawn walls, but this is a good solution.' M. Winther: 'If anybody wants to study the characteristics of a certain type of new piece, how it affects the strategical situation, and what new tactical themes are introduced, then my conservative implementations are ideal.' Both these statements, I think, are worthy of further discussion, and I hope you gentlemen [and anyone else] will feel free to comment.
A very nice combination of ideas, this game appears to meet its stated goals quite well. It should be interesting to play. Will there be a preset?
Joshua, sorry I didn't pay attention to this when it first came out. My only excuse, a poor one, is that I am still new enough to any chess variants that I avoid the non-Western ones, frankly because drops terrify me. But as far as pieces go, you posted a good chunk of the pieces I developed for 'Two Large Shatranj Variants' 2 months before I posted 2Large. So we're at least even, as I thought/hoped I had come up with 'my' Minister [Kone] and High Priestess [Zune] first, at least in print. Hope this makes up for me beating you to 'Hyperchess'. Eric Greenwood beat us both to the Squire -> Kozu/Jumping General. I will state that I was unaware of your pieces when I posted 2Large, and, if not for David Paulowich [who enjoys finding previous examples of my 'new' pieces - he mentioned the Squire to me] I would still be unaware that you do have precedence in those pieces. They *are* nice little pieces, aren't they? Very vicious; the kind that come right up to you and kick you in the shins while whacking you with a stick. Few people respect them until after they've been left battered and bleeding.
Very nice modest variant, very clever name. And rather than pardon the pun, I salute it; we need more humor here [okay, puns may not be humor, but...]. Being an iconoclast and a grouchy old man, I don't believe in giving modest variants a rating higher than 'good', but this is such a fine, offbeat idea that I have to give it at least a 'good+'. And the rules are well-written. Congratulations, Charles, on an excellent little conceit.
The annoying promotion/pawn move rule is the only thing that prevents this game from being practically perfect. I'd suggest that pawns can move to the back rank even if they can't promote, and be allowed to move sideways along the back rank 1 square per move, capturing as they go. Reversals of direction would be allowed. I lean toward allowing a pawn to move, possibly capturing on the move, and then promote when the opportunity presents itself, as well as just promote in situ when a piece becomes available. In this scheme, promotion would not be required as soon as a piece became available.
Just finished getting thumped by Antoine in this delightful game. Congrats, Gary, you've created an 8x8x2 masterpiece here. Offbeat, intriguing, spare and elegant - all in all, a very nice piece of design work. Ha, you make it tough not to envy you. Keep up the good work. [Somebody told me that recently, and it needs to be passed on. You earned it ;-) ] Thanks for the game.
I had an opportunity to play Near Chess this past weekend, and also 'Chess with Almost Different Armies': Near vs FIDE. They are both fine games. The rating of good is the highest I will give to a modest variant; this one deserves it. Joe ps: congrats, Rich, someone else posted here ;-) - it really is a very nice game, I recommend it.
I'd say Steven hit a home run, even if he didn't hit this one clear out of the park. Let me quote the last 2 lines of the Betza article Jorg refers to, Different Pawns. 'If you can find alternate Pawns, I will be in awe, taking my hat off to you. And, to keep you from feeling complacent, I'll ask you to try chess with different Kings. I now fade away, leaving nothing behind but an evil grin.' Spartan chess, with its pair of kings, is halfway between FIDE and Gary Gifford's Three Elephant Chess. http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSthreeelephantc You may argue the kings aren't quite different enough to fulfill Ralph's requirements. Still, Steven nailed the different pawns and also managed to put 3 kings on the board in the same 2-player game. That's a nice, high benchmark for the rest of us to go after.
This is a very nice-playing modest variant. I've greatly enjoyed my games of it. I can absolutely recommend this game as an excellent variant tournament choice. It gets a lot of mileage out of a pair of fairly simple changes. The initial set-up is excellent; it gives good play. The weak piece is a very nice choice, and provides a nice companion/foil for the bishop and knight.
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.