[ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments by johnnyluken
Grand Chess. Christian Freeling's popular large chess variant on 10 by 10 board. Rules and links. (10x10, Cells: 100) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating] Extra Move Chess. Double-move variant based on limitations of Zillions of Games. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I had dabbled with the idea of a 1/2/2/2... multimove variant, if only as it negates white advantage. The restrictions you introduced make this one of the most well refined multimove variants I've seen. While an interesting alternative to FIDE, this mechanic probably improves most larger variants outright.
Circe Chess. Captured pieces return to their original square. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]As it is with progressive chess, this games mechanic seems a perfect foil for a conversion based game. Most conventional conversion based variants use a drop in rule for piece reintroduction, which I would consider too cheap, as it nominally gives all pieces full access to the board as a first turn. It also arguably ruins the flow of a game. Reverse circe would solve this problem nicely.
As far as "hottest" variants, sadly I'm not sure the site generates enough traffic, or arguably as much traffic as it could. The overwhelming popularity of chess dot com (and chess itself of course) shows that a potential audience type is there. However there seems to be a dogmatism in the FIDE community. I proposed what was I viewed was a logical refinement to the stalemate rule on the site forum (stalemate with pieces vs a bare king is a win) and was universally shot down. I'm not sure a "killer app" for chess variants is even possible, however the modest popularity of certain variants such Fischer Random Chess at least shows the most likely way of achieving it-games that evolve the chess concept with some additional mechanic at low cost to rule complexity or game symmetry, rather than a mere sideways alternation of it.
HG Muller, yes certainly it would be nicer to be able to easily parse variants in other ways, such as board shape, size, material type, piece density, objectives etc. My own games lack presentation, however I would say it is a general problem. In an ideal world, one would be able to click on a game and not only have images, but some form of interaction, perhaps even auto generated games, though of course thats easy for me to say, as I have no part in the building of the site... As far as games with orthodox material being uninteresting, I would argue that a game on a 16*16 board with added mechanics is a much bigger departure from FIDE Chess than a slightly enlarged version with alternate pieces, though perhaps thats a matter of taste... Theres also ease of understanding to consider...
I have checked out the favourites page...its a decent addition.
I would say I am quite critical of my own games, which is why I have contributed so few.
Minima is just a compaction of Maxima fused with Ultima. I would say its a very nice addition to the group, but I wouldn't claim it be anywhere near as groundbreaking as Abbotts original.
Abalonian Chess is just a fusion of Chess and Abalone. Its probably the weakest of my variants.
Pawns Vault Chess has a nice gimmick and is quite colourful though again I've made no claims about it being particularly special.
Relay Chess is I maintain is one of the fundamental variants in that it is a "flattening" of the concept of the popular Knights Relay. However this was just a chance discovery. I wouldn't even consider it "my" game.
For Chess 256, I completely overwrote two previous games as I considered them too low quality for the concept, even though they were probably still good enough to be contributed as separate games.
Expanded Chess 256. The Chess experience upscaled to a larger board. (16x16, Cells: 256) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]"Reverse pawns" (Berolina Pawns) were from an earlier draft I forgot to edit out, before I considered this game as a FIDE superset. New Chess 256 just uses ordinary pieces.
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPP
RRNNBBQQKKBBNNRR
RRNNBBQQKKBBNNRR
I wasn't sure how best to add diagrams. I'll try using game courier.
In bringing up Chess 256, I'd like to raise a reservation I have about this site. What is its actual purpose? Is it just for hobbyists to submit curiosities-slightly expanded or altered games with novelty value but little inherent worth-an endless of series of homages to be churned out with the unspoken acceptance that the original is ultimately the best? Or is it for people who genuinely want to evolve the concept of chess? People who want to design games that equal or exceed FIDE chess in quality? Speaking personally, I will probably never submit more than 10 variants to this site. I believe in a game being a conceptually pure endpoint and designed towards optimum playability. To that end, why is there a list of "recognised variants" that have permanent pride of place on the front page, while other equally good if not better games (in terms of gameplay and conceptual originality) gather dust? Whats the criteria for this selection? I am confident that Chess 256 is objectively as good as any these games. Logically it is one of the fundamental variants-if you want the chess experience perfectly mapped to a 256 square board (with added gameplay dimensions that added complexity can bring), this is it (this was after all a game carefully constructed towards a clear endpoint-a game whose gametree is a perfect superset of that of FIDE chess). Yet will it ever be featured or even looked at? Shouldn't there some kind of quality control, some filtration process or reward system so that conceptually stronger games can get better exposure?
I see a lot of larger variants here that seem to exist as "collectors items", happy to expand the piece set, yet paying little consideration towards preserving the mechanics of 8*8 chess. How many 144+ variants here can be considered even close to as well designed and playable as the core variant this website is based on?
Common problems I see;
1. slow, unreactive buildup
2. weak, attritional, short range pieces that bloat the board
3. slack, fragmented gameplay
4. sparse piece layouts
A larger variant does not have to suffer any loss of quality-it can simply be a more complex equivalent-in the same way Go on an 19*19 is unconditionally superior to Go on a 9*9.
Chess is less easily scalable than Go, but Chess 256 more or less achieves a perfect mapping to a larger board based on 3 rules.
1. conditional second step for short range pieces
2. symmetric group movement of connected pieces of like type
3. diagonal gliding
Proof of concept I believe, is that Chess 256 can perfectly emulate a regular game of chess. Fools mate and Scholars mate are both achievable in an equivalent number of moves.
Thoughts on large numbers of players in one chess game. Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I think freedom to choose who you fight with or against is one the more intrigueing aspects of multi player chess, and extra constructs should be avoided where possible. Reward systems for enterprising players seem necessary-gaining players you captured, and in the event of checkmate inheriting the remaining piece set. Incomplete information is a good feature to add. Personally I think the mechanic of Dark Chess, where a player can only see through his pieces, is more ideal as it again rewards an agressive player, in a game system where conservatism could get unfairly rewarded. Simultaneous move commit is intriguing in itself and easier to implement. Is there a chess variant based on this mechanic? It obviously requires some exception handling, for example; *Non attacks* If a piece moves to retaliate, but a piece isn't actually captured it captures its own piece/or produces a null move. Only allowed if a piece is actually threatened. *Pawns misses* If a pawn attempts to capture on a vacated square, it moves straight forward. If it can't advance it produces a null move. Material wise pawns probably have to replaced by something more mobile.
Rococo. A clear, aggressive Ultima variant on a 10x10 ring board. (10x10, Cells: 100) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I think the general trend in ultima variants is in removing significantly weaker pieces from the board in favour of a balanced set, which I think is aesthetically better and more interesting. Only way I think having weaker pieces works is if there is an even hierarchy of different valued pieces, but most ultima pieces cluster around a ~7-9p value. As far as overpowered pawns and explosive capture attack, why not just introduce a seperate piece for that purpose? What about an "alchemist" piece that allows adjacent pieces to perform atomic/suicide capture (like in Atomic Chess), and that explodes as an attack or if captured?
To clarify my amendment proposal Aronsons swapper has two moves.. Positional swap P(S,P)=>(P,S) Mutual destruction M(S,P)=>(_,_) I recommend removing the latter, which seems to refer to a separate concept, and adding 2 new swap moves. Colour swap C(S,P')=>(S',P) Type swap T(S,P')=>(P,S') The fact that this is a natural completion of the concept can be shown from the fact that any swap move acts as a combination of the other two (for friendly pieces T and P are equivalent, and C is a null move). The resulting piece is considerably stronger (probably the equal of any piece on the board), more logically consistent, and I would argue no less intuitive or complicated than the current version or some of the proposals.
Actually to say that the swapper 2.0 performs conversion isn't strictly correct. Conversion (C,P)=>(C,P') is a different moveset. As conversion is merely a strengthened form of capture, it would have to implemented as an indirect piece to be distinct, so a "missionary" would be something that for example allows an adjacent piece to convert and/or be converted.
Sorry my mistake. I don't see that conversion is more an Ultima concept than a Rococo one, nor do I see how turning the swapper into a exploding piece fits more with its ability than an ability swap. As I understand it, the swapper currently merely mutually destroys with an opposition piece in its line of sight. Its not an "explosion", its just taking it and another piece out of the game. On the other hand, allowing it to swap its ability with another piece in line of sight ( (S, P') => (P, S') ) is just a logical extension of what the piece already is. Existing swaps of friendly pieces ((S, P)=>(P, S)) could equally be interpreted as an ability swap rather than a positional one. This rule allows it to become a worthy piece while remaining "swapperlike."
Explosion is a concept that is definitely worth considering adding in some form. However I'm not sure tacking it on to an existing piece is the way forward. I also don't see it working that well in this game, other than an overpowered means of flattracking the weaker pieces. On the other hand a direct ability swap/conversion would give the swapper a unique and strong threat against all opposition pieces. The stronger the piece in the swappers line of sight, the more severe the threat the swapper/converter would offer. In fact now that I think of it, it is enough of an augmentation by itself to safely disregard my mediated swap proposal.
Well its your game. However I think this move better complements the swappers ability. And the new swapping procedure really isn't complicated; P1 Sw P2 -> P2 Sw P1. Or for conversion (Black Piece of Type 1, Swapper, White Piece of Type 2) => (White Piece of Type 1, Swapper, Black Piece of Type 2) Its a good way of introducing the missing concept of conversion into an Ultima variant. If you think its too complicated or over dynamic then you could also just use direct conversion as the "special move." (Black non swapper, White Swapper)=>(Black Swapper, White non swapper) The latter move equates to double the material gain produced when merely mutually destroying the swapper with a stronger piece, and fits in more intuitively with its ability.
Expanded Chess 256. The Chess experience upscaled to a larger board. (16x16, Cells: 256) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I've remade this game with the previous rule additions discarded and replaced with one new mechanic; symmetrical group piece movement. That is, the simultaneous moving of up to 4 pieces that have common movement type and that form a uninterrupted symmetrical structure, ie a square or a line of equidistant pieces. Thus Chess 256-which by design has no new piece types-is a perfect superset of Orthodox Chess. In other words the set of all possible games of FIDE Chess are contained in the set of all possible games of Chess 256. However the game has far more possibilities than just that. Just as Go is far more impoverished on a 9x9 board than a 19x19 board, so Chess 256 is a far richer more organic game than Chess 64.
Rococo. A clear, aggressive Ultima variant on a 10x10 ring board. (10x10, Cells: 100) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]The swappers capture method seems decoupled from its ability. Its also quite a weak piece. I propose; a) allow the swapper to swap 2 pieces on either side of it, while remaining stationary. b) allow it to swap piece type, ie converting a friendly to an enemy and an enemy to a friendly.
Euqorab. Anti-Baroque. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Nice concept and homage to the original. The "wrong reaper" is clever and not something I had thought of. One thing maybe missing from the set is to change to the king from anti king chess that can't be captured, but requires constant enemy threat. As mentioned the widow is essentially an immobiliser and the "independent" is overpowered, though the presence of the anti king would makes it a more acceptable piece. Also in the spirit of the game would be to have a "mobiliser" type that for example allows double move to adjacent friendlies.
Relay Chess. Pieces inherit the ability of friendly pieces they are in the attack range of. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Some amendments... Pawns now inherit ability of friendly pieces in limited form, and castling, en passant and double moves are deprecated. This game has inevitably got lost in the crowd, but I heavily recommend people check it out (this is not really self praise as its not a game I consider "my own", more a simple discovery). Its probably the most playable and elegant of my variants (along with Minima), and it has the advantage of using standard equipment. In my opinion it is a game that does what so few chess variants actually do, in that it genuinely improves on FIDE Chess. To me, it belongs on the front page as one of the fundamental chess variants.
Even with semiautomated action based command, gameplay becomes more fragmented or "bitty" in more intricate variants. My own 16*16 variant suffers from this, despite my attempts to preserve all the fluidity of 8*8 chess. To truly preserve the feel of chess in a higher D game, one would also have to preserve the length and dynamism of the board-in other words have a player able to make multiple moves at once. There are to my eyes, 3 principle compound moves one could make (some already exist among chess variants here). 1. ****Zonal movement*** Move 1 piece in each zone-eg 3d chess may allow movement of a piece in 16 4*4 subcubes to speed gameplay along. 2. ***Type*** Move pieces of a specific type. Would weight values towards more common (typically weaker) pieces. 3. ***Actions*** Allow to move a certain number of pieces for a specific macro command. Eg "advance, pawns, protection" would be a good opening move to develope pawn chains in an opening game. Further macro example-"hunt, X"; move to capture given piece (X), in minimum number of moves. The higher dimensional the games the more removed each piece becomes in terms of its ability to access other squares, so this attack becomes useful, particularly against the opponent queen or king.
I guess I was misinformed. I was referring to someone casually referring to a 3D game where he then stacked more boards as 7D/8D etc, which was just 3D on a stretched board. In any event there certainly aren't any 4D+ variants on here (or if there were they would be contracted to 3*3 or 2*2 boards and only that for 5 or 6D) as we reach a limit in how we can represent and play games, which is what I was attempting to discuss-more intricate chess variants with a much higher branching factor and how we could play and get an appreciation for them.
Even in 3D chess, we approach the limits of human observance, and the ability to form deep strategies. If ever we are to play more interesting (or at least more complex) forms of chess, we have to think of another way of playing it, not in terms of individual moves, which become too cumbersome, but in terms of commands, and layered on top of that, wider strategies for games of ever increasing intricacy. Working at the core of this would be a running index for each piece-a heads up display. For example for a starting rook in 6D chess you could have: ************ 111111 (coordinate index) 100000 (move type index/previous move made) - (opponent piece type threatened by-ABC etc if applicable) abcdef (friendly piece types in range of rooks movement) - (other special piece status eg P=pinned) ************ A FIDE array would read: 11/10/-/N,p1;12/1:2/-/p3;13/11/-/p, p; 14/10, 11/-/B, K, p, p ,p; etc Okay, not terribly pretty, but the basis for a much more streamlined way to play an advanced game. Simple macrocommands could include; skirmish (move to furthest unprotected enemy square), kick (threaten material deficit), spread out (increase mobility of side), retreat, block, pin, retaliate, check, double up etc. The next layer would be how to bundle all that into higher strategies. Note: I'm not much of a programmer, but maybe this could form the basis of an efficient and flexible AI?
I've seen a few references to higher D (4D+) variants on here, but nothing beyond stacking boards, which is of course just stretching 3D space. Naturally, its not particularly practical to implement such games at present-not too many 4D+ GUIs around as yet. However there is another preceding and more important core approach to play (or at least simulate) a higher D chess game, or more intricate chess variants in general. More on that later... Its pretty interesting (for me at least) to think about how such a fundamental and well balanced abstract concept as chess transfers into higher dimensions. A 6D Chess game for example would, as far as I can make out, have 4,096 pawns/pieces for either side, 6 straight simple sliders, (6 choose (compound level)) compounds for each level, (eg. (6 choose 2)=30 double compound pieces, still just the one, extremely powerful, queen), and (((range*number of orthonogal axes acted simultaneously upon)-2) leapers (eg 2 2-range leapers acting across 3 axes, the 1:2:2:0:0:0 and 1:1:2:0:0:0). Quite a bit more going on than FIDE Chess... But how on earth would a mere human get any kind of appreciation for such a game? A game with an incomprehensibly large branching factor, that would take a solid year to play? This is where I segway into the concept of macrocommands. :)
Hi all, Been a while since I posted here. Laziness, and the more games get posted, the less any individual one gets noticed anyway, so its discouraging. Anyway, I still regularly have new thoughts on this topic and I still want to contribute here, but rather than just churn out games that cluster closely to ones that have already been made and add to the pile, I feel it would more fruitful and enjoyable for me (and hopefully for you), if I instead discussed deeper, philosophical or more far flung topics among chess variants. PS: is it too much to ask we could get a blog or forum section on this website? I know theres an index, but its not particularly friendly or nice to look at. It seems this website is missing a trick here. I feel it could attract a lot more people and contributors, potentially even a lot more, if it were just a bit more open and friendlier in its layout. A forum or blog section being a good start point...
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.