Comments by maeko

Hey David!

My computer may have some problem with the presets or something.  I
submitted another variant about a week ago (?) entitled 123456 Chess.  Am I
doing the process incorrectly or is it the name or what?  Please let me
know if I need to resubmit it.  Thanks!

Best and happy holidays!
Nick

Thanks, again, Mats!

I had no idea that that file was there.  It should help me quite a bit,
now.  The turn order is now satisfactory, though.  Thanks :)

I think the log went bad after you added the rules:

/play/pbm/play.php?game=Ajax+Orthodox+Chess&log=j_carrillo_vii-maeko-2009-338-083

Thanks.

Charles,

In your rules, you state 'll compound pieces (Queen, Tank, Gnu) in 12# Wildeurasian, are barred from entering an enemy camp.'  Does this mean that they cannot give check there, as well?  Thanks.

Nick said:

'I am the coolest and was right about the Minister.'

That is also correct ;)

I tried to change the index information, so that the name '12# Chess'
matched the actual variant name '12 Sharp Chess'.  Was I doing it right,
there? 

Thanks David!

10-Directional Chess
---
To review 10-Directional Chess would be more to review the pieces used in the game.  Knappen introduces two pieces and replaces the orthodox knight and queen with them.  These new pieces are the eohippo (knight + forward/backward wazir) and the fischer (knight + forward/backward rook).

In the rules, Knappen eludes to this new piece set being a comparable Chess with Different Armies (CwDA) army.  I disagree with this statement.  This army is significantly weaker than the FIDE army.  Though the eohippo does have a one up on the knight, the fischer has too many weaknesses to even be comparable to the queen.  This army would get destroyed by the 'Fabulous FIDE' set, if played by someone with even the same skill level.  

Both of these pieces have weaknesses that are easily exploitable.  They are both quite vulnerable to pins, minus a pin via the file against the fischer.  They are vulnerable from the diagonals and from the left and right.  They also share the weakness of the knight, that they need to be in the center of the board to be the most efficient and are relatively weak along the sides of the board.

In an endgame with a rook, king and pawns vs a fischer, king and an equal number of pawns placed in equal positions, I would wager the side with the rook would have the better hand.  The capability to run along the ranks is most invaluable, especially against a fischer and its weaknesses.  The fischer, however, would have the better capability to fork pieces.

If you were to compare the fischer to the eohippo, it is obvious that the fischer is more powerful, but in a similar end game situation as the rook and the fischer, I would imagine it would be fairly even play.  I think who ever would have the move tempo would have the advantage.  However, I feel that the rook far outclasses the eohippo, even with how closely related all of the pieces are to each other.  

The main strength in the two new pieces lies within their forking ability.  Not only does it retain the knights powerful move, but it throws in a nice orthogonal move as well, providing more opportunities for these forks to occur.  In my second game played, I even lost via smothered mate, which hardly ever occurs in a game of FIDE chess. 

With all of these strengths, weaknesses, and similarities noted, I would value these two new pieces (on an 8x8 board) relatively low.  I would give the eohippo a 4 and the fischer either a 5 or just slightly more.  The eohippo would still be considered a minor piece as it cannot mate a bare king with just itself and a king, though it can now cause a stalemate.  The fischer is considered a major piece, following the same method.  Keep in mind that I am no expert on piece values, just from my opinion.

One thing that I have noticed in the games of 10-Directional Chess games that I have played, is that the pawn structures in the mid-game are unique.  I find that the middle pawns are lost early in about half the games, leaving quite a bit of pressure on the sides of the board, while opening the middle.  This may be due to the fact that the people playing it are more used to the value of the center of FIDE chess and try to apply that here, where it may not be the best place to focus on.  I invite more people to try the center, though, because I think it would be interesting to see the strategies that can arise from controlling it.  Just remember that an open center will get the fischer out into the game early without compromising one's development.

Yes, I know you have all been waiting for Nick's list of 10-D strategies.  Well, here it:

When playing AGAINST these pieces (whether using the same army or different): 

-It is best to attack the fischer and eohippo from their weaknesses as I explained in a previous paragraph.  If the player is new to using this army, they may rely on these pieces a lot.  However, if you eliminate all of them, it leaves your opponent with just a set of FIDE pieces, which I am sure he/she would be familiar with.
-Take out their rooks at all cost.  They are (in my opinion) their most deadly piece, and they have TWO of them!
-Never forget about the orthogonal movements of Knappen's pieces.  In the games I have played/watched, many a blunder has been made (some costing the player with the obvious advantage the game).  It is very easy to overlook those moves and it will haunt you.
-The fischer and the eohippo will be used for forking pieces.  Again, don't forget about the orthogonal movements.
-If you have a different army other than the 10-D one, you will want to maintain a strong center.  This will block the fischer's development.

When playing WITH these pieces (pretty much the opposite of playing against):

-Keep your weak spots covered and be wary of the potential of pins.  
-Protect your rooks and use them wisely.  In an endgame, they will be your most valuable players, giving you the most potential for a checkmate.  
-Try to open up the center game.  It will provide you with the best opportunity to develop your fischer.  Also remember that a fischer in the center is the deadliest fischer on the board.
-Utilize the orthogonal movements of Knappen's pieces.  They will provide protection and also forking opportunities not presented with a standard knight.

Knappen brings some more interesting light into the chess world with his new pieces.  Personally, I find the new eohippo to be a great piece and am currently utilizing it in a testing of one of my new games.  However, the fischer, though a stronger piece than the eohippo, leaves more to be desired.  I would not have set this piece to be a queen replacement.  However, with these new pieces, Knappen retains the chess spirit while compromising the old, drawn out opening books that grandmasters pride themselves with, which are a big part of the reason why I have shied away from the ancient game, myself.  This sigh of relief and new outlook of the game put it high in my favor, though I am by no means great at this game (in fact, I am quite terrible at it).  Also, as Fergus states, the learning curve is minimal, though that works on both an upside and a downside.  With these closing comments being said, I would rate this game on Nick's personal scale out of 10... a 6.5.  I would like to see this game played more often by other people.  I think it would expand all of our horizons, though I think the fischer would deter many from its play.

No problem :)  Thanks!

10x10 Multiple Knot Chess
---
I admit, I have not played this variant, though I say with the utmost
certainty that there is no reasonable way to play it.  Whether if someone
is trying to make a preset or a homemade board, it would seem almost
impossible to do so.  The only way to make a board for this would to make
it extremely large, or find some pieces that are extremely small.  This
would be to compensate for the 10 celled rows that are squeezed into this
jumbled mess.  Maybe if he lowered the cell size, but I don't even think a
regular 8x8 would fit well enough.

I have contemplated for some time as to why Missoum would create this board
and offer it for play.  Why would this be better than to play chess with
the same setup on a 10x10 board?  After some thought, the best that I can
come up with would be to have a new perspective on the board without
changing the play. However, when he changed the board, he sacrificed the
play.  

I have looked through all of his boards, and I think this is the best
looking one with the most chance of playability, by far; however, it would
be more trouble than its worth to make the board instead of moving onto
something else.  The time and resources are not worth it, in my opinion,
nor is the enjoyment of playing a game when you finish the board.  

If this board were somehow created, the thrill that I believe he has hoped
to achieve by making this board can be neutralized when a 'Play By Email'
environment is utilized.  A person can just as easily pull up a 10x10 board
with the setup and gain the advantage of not having to deal with the twists
and turns.  This would only be a feasible play in person OTB.  

Though I do not care for the board, the other aspect of the game is the
setup of pieces that he chose for it.  I do not pretend to be an expert on
variants, pieces, and their piece values.  What I write is in my own
opinion and knowledge that I have gained from experience in play of certain
games.  What Missoum has done with this game is simply add an extra knight
and a pawn to each side.  With a bigger board, he has added two pieces that
are much weaker on a 10x10 board than on an 8x8 and kept the power players
(whose value raises on a bigger board) the same.  Personally, I would
prefer maybe changing a knight for a bishop, but I think that is relative
to who is playing.  I think that is a matter of opinion and I cannot
criticize for that. 

Despite my negative statements, I see where Missoum's heart lies, however
it doesn't make this board playable with a reasonably sized board.  If
anyone could prove me wrong, I would LOVE to see the board and recant what
I have said.  With all of this being said, I rate this variant, on Nick's
personal scale out of 10, a 1.  I have given him a point for the thought
provocation that he has given me for looking at chess a different way.

Fergus,

Sounds good.  Speaking of other tournaments, has there been any talk of CV
Tournament #4?  I was talking to Joe Joyce the other day and commenting on
how I was not a part of CV during those days and would like to see it.  On
the other hand, there is a tournament going on right now that has Clockwork
Orange Chess as the variant for a certain round.  My suggestion :)  Maybe
when we start it, you can overlook some of the games and see how your
variant is playing out.

Are there any stipulations on these NextChess ideas?  For instance, if I
were to try to invent a variant for this, would it qualify if I thought it
included the qualities that the masses would like?  Or would it have to be
more profound of a variant that has been tried and tested, such as your
Eurasian Chess and Great Shatranj?  I am debating on trying to come up with
one, but if it won't be used, then I may bypass the effort for now. 
Thanks!

I have a prest for WKC!

Hey Charles,

I am actually in the process of trying to make presets for your 12# variants.  I was a little confused on some of the pieces (I think some images represented different pieces as the different variants were listed).  I have made a list of what variants you listed and what I believe to be the opening setup of the armies.  Could you please look over what I have written and correct the inefficiencies?  Thank you.

-Nick

12# COURIER        12# EURASIAN     12# WILDEURASIAN QI      
---                ---              ---                                  
RBKQBR             RCQKCR           RCWTCR                               
NAFFAN             NOBBON           BOQKOB                          
PPPPPP             PPPPPP            MNNM                   


12# TIMUR           12# MITREGI 108    12# WILDEBEEST
---                 ---                ---
AMDDMA              LEXKEL             RBQKBR
RIGKIR               RBBR              MNWWNM 
NFWWFN              HYVVYH             PPPPPP

     
12# RUTLAND       12# SHOXIANG      12# COMPOUND A      
---               ---               ---                 
RJQKZR            LRKBRL            RUQKZR              
NBBBBN            VCXXCV            N BB N              
PPPPPP            YNSSNY            PPPPPP              


12# COMPOUND B
---
RZQKZR
NBUUBN
PPPPPP


A= ALFIL
B= BISHOP
C= CANNON (CHINESE)
D= DABABA
E= MITRE (BISHOP -ONLY FORWARD)
F= FERZ
G= GIRAFFE
H= HUMP (CAMEL -ONLY FORWARD)
I= PICKET
J= CROWNED ROOK (ROOK + FERZ)
K= KING
L= LANCE
M= CAMEL
N= KNIGHT
O= ARROW (VAO)
P= PAWN
Q= QUEEN
R= ROOK
S= STEPPING ELEPHANT
T= TANK (CANNON + VAO)
U= CARDINAL
V= SILVER GENERAL
W= WILDEBEEST
X= GOLD GENERAL
Y= HELM (SHOGI KNIGHT)
Z= MARSHALL

I concur with the below statements on the incorrect naming of the game.  

Also, I am quite fond of the first two pictures of the home made boards in the pictures.  Does anyone know how they were made?  I have a nice board for this game, as well, with some nice pieces.  

One of my favorite games, hands down.

Fergus,

I want to point out that it is, in fact, legal to move a pawn 2 squares on White's first move.  It states in the rules (#3):

You may move an unmoved Pawn two spaces forward only on your second move or on White's very first move. 

When I was trying to make my moves, not only was the double step on my first move illegal (as white), but also all the single steps and knight moves.  I had no trouble after you modified the code, but as Jeremy just said, he is having the same issues.