Ratings & Comments

H.G. Miller, I'm sorry, I missed your response.

Here is my problem: the move is specifically defined as 'one square orthogonally, then one square diagonally outward.'

My assumption (possibly/apparently incorrect) is that spaces without notation are not squares, do not exist, and therefore cannot be used as part of any piece's movement.

The white knight is in a8.  The only spaces that appear to be orthogonally adjacent are a6 and c8.  Diagonally outward from those spaces yields only b5 and d7.

I don't see a path to c6......without counting the quarter-circle empty space within a8 as orthogonally adjacent to a8.  Diagonally outward from that empty space yields c6 as the destination.  But I wouldn't think the empty space would be used as part of the path, at least without directly mentioning it; such as 'the knight can leap over non-existent squares.'

(If the Knight's movement was defined as one space diagonally, then one space orthogonally outward, it makes sense.  The white knight starts in a8, diagonally moves to b6 or d7, and then moves orthogonally outward to one of b5, c6, or d7.  The white knight would actually have two routes to c6.  But the movement path of the knight is specifically defined as 1 orthogonally, then 1 diagonally outward.)

Basically, Ben Good went through the trouble of specifically defining the leaping knight's move (something I consider necessary to avoid questions on this crazy cool board) and then his example does not seem to match the defined move!

If there is a path I am missing, please show me.  But the only one I see is using the non-existant quarter circle within a8.

I tried a few weeks ago and could not.  :-(

I was really looking forward to playing a few against the computer, too.
That said, I've been having a great time with game courier!

I have no clue what you are talking about. The image on the page on which you comment doesn't show any coordinates, so I have no idea what you mean by a8, c6, etc. You must be looking at a completely different picture.

I've got to comment on this....a crazy lot of ideas in this game.

I think they need to be refined, but I am attracted to the unusual.
This is definitly unusual!

The board notation is available elsewhere in the game's pages:  notation page

I agree that the presentation is unclear in this case.  My impression is that the author just used a standard definition for knight, not recognizing the problem caused by the gaps (or assuming the diagram made it clear).

Does FisherRandomChess (Chess960) produce fewer draws than regular Chess when opponents are about equal in strength? How about Capablanca Chess?

In case anything can be done, I'd note that the Diagram Designer's Alfaerie: Many piece set seems to be missing any symbol to represent a plain Alfil+Rook compound piece figurine, which I happen to be thinking I might use sometime, since I'm toying with an invention idea. The closest symbols are for either elephant rider versions of that compound piece, or else for versions where the rook component is restricted to moving up to just 4 squares. I'm thinking the latter would be a less confusing substitute (if one is necessary) for a plain Alfil+Rook piece, unless something more unrelated like e.g. an upside-down rook figurine would be less confusing than even that. I suppose CVP editors take accepting such emergency substitutions for diagram figurines on a case-by-case basis.

As an aside, oddly enough, Diagram Designer's Alfaerie: Many piece set does have a figurine for the plain Dabbabah+Bishop compound piece, as well as for the (plain) Alfil+Dabbabah+Queen triple compound piece. The latter I recently noticed is a piece type used in the patented 10x10 Big Battle commercial variant. No indication on the CVP page for Big Battle that that piece type is patented, nor is there anything about the QAD type being patented that I could easily find elsewhere on the internet. I know e.g. the Champion piece type (aka WAD) in (commercial) Omega Chess is used liberally in games found on this website alone. On the other hand, every aspect of e.g. Arimaa is patented/licensed (including the piece type names for that, if I recall correctly).

I'd like to add something on this topic, especially for you HG.

A while ago, around 2 years, when starting the design of the apothecary games, you had recommended me extra major pieces (it was actually not extra minor pieces but towards the idea that a higher percentage of strong pieces leads to clearer outcomes). This for the simple reason that in the endgame best moves become much more specific especially when it comes to trades with strong pieces. When the board is empty but the material is very strong, tempo matters a lot :)! I still don't like ridiculous strong pieces. I tend not to use amazons, for example in my game ideas.

I think in designing chess variants this makes the drawing chances smaller. With perfect play it will still be a draw as long the rules allow it (in Arimaa obviously this is not possible). That for studying purposes.

This becomes more interesting when studying games that can be strictly longer then omega0 (the smallest infinite ordinal). But we don't have many such games probably, I know of no good one :(!

Other nicer finite cases are games with different armies. Spartan is a very good example. With perfect play I think it can be a black win. Here Zermelo's theorem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zermelo%27s_theorem_(game_theory)) does not apply in it's classic sense as the players have different moves, but it can probably (although I have not did it) easily be proven that the game is either a win or a draw.

You can get compound pieces of any kind with the SVG piece generator:

( http://winboard.nl/my-cgi/fen2.cgi?f=e-r )

Ben Reininger, thanks for linking that image.  I should have done that initially.
Your comment also made me realize something I missed....if you count the knight move as 2 sq ortho/1 sq ortho to the side OR 1 sq ortho/2 sq ortho to the side.....then the knight can reach b5, c6, and d7.  So yeah, it looks like he just used a standard definition (1 ortho, 1 dag outward) and then counted the squares differently for the example.

H.G. Muller, interestingly enough, I don't see a confusion with 'outward'.  I just see it as 'away from starting square'.  But you are correct, everything has to be defined very clearly on this crazy board.

 

Which now leaves us with a conumdrum.....how do knights move?  Apparently we cannot use the offical way (1 ortho/1 dig outward) without contradicting the offical example.

My opinion; use both the definition and the example as offical, as the inventor probably had to spend more time and effort constructing the example than writing the definition, so it probably reflects his desires.

So, I say:

The knight can move on notated spaces, either 1 othogonally then 1 diagonally outward (outward is away from the starting square) OR 2 orthogonally then 1 orthogonally to the side, OR 1 orthogonally then 2 orthogonally to the side.

Note this does not use the inaccessable (non-notated) spaces, but I believe it can reach all squares that could be reached by using the inacessable spaces.

I strongly encourage continuing work on this....I love the idea of 'choosing different armies'!

Sirlin's Chess2

Betza's Chess with Different Armies

Fantasy Grand Chess

And your idea of a one-time enhancement Trance (spell) appears to be an excellent idea of something different while not being too powerful.

However, I think the rules need some clarification.
In particular, the army 'Hologram' appears underpowered rules-as-written.  You gain the ability to suicide your queen to teleport your king.  Useful, but only so much.  You can't use it offensively (teleporting your king to the front lines is not smart) and if you use it to get the king out of check you're already in a bad way, and probably only delaying the inevitable.
Meanwhile, you loose the ability for the queen to capture--but it can still be captured, apparently.  So the queen is essentally useless.  (The rules specify only that the queen cannot capture.  All other rules being the same as chess, that means the queen can be captured.  A queen that cannot capture or be captured is useful as a blocking piece--is that what you meant?) 
The Trance is not that powerful, only allowing the queen the ability to capture kingwise.  (If the queen is uncapturable, this is very powerful.)
I'm left with the conclusion that you must have meant the queen cannot capture or be captured.

Apparently with Game Courier you can create your own piece set (i.e. a collection of images), which could then be used with GC or Diagram Designer (which uses pieces sets currently available from GC), but if you wish to upload images to this website (for use by GC/DD, at least) you ought to ask Fergus or perhaps another editor to do that for you, I gather from the following GC instruction sub-link (I've never tried to create my own piece set as yet, and it may be beyond my current know-how if I ever wished to do so):

https://www.chessvariants.com/play/pbm/devguide.html#newset

I've played a fair bit of Sirlin's Chess2, so I'm going to make a bunch of posts to move the rules onto CV website, in case the game is ever abandoned by Sirlin games.  I will also comment on the game in general.
Sirlin's Chess2 is quite balanced, and has clearly gone through a lot of playtesting.  Being developed by a modern boardgame company owner clearly shows here!

First, Sirlin's Chess2 adds 3 things:

1)win by centerline invasion
2)dueling stones; possible loss of an attacking piece
3)different armies.

Quote from offical rules:

New Win Condition: Midline Invasion
You can still win by checkmate, but you also win if your king crosses the midline of the board. Each move has added significance, because you must weigh how much it helps or hurts each player’s chances of winning by king crossing the midline in addition to the usual considerations of furthering a checkmate.
Just like in Chess 1, it’s illegal to move into check, so to win by Midline Invasion, your King must land on the 5th rank without being in check. Unlike Chess 1 though, there are no stalemates. If you have no legal moves, you lose the game.  While stalemates are common in Chess 1, they aren’t needed in Chess 2 because the Midline Invasion rule provides an even stronger option that a player can aim for when he’s down on material.

In practice, against reasonablely competent players, the majority of games will end by midline invasion.  For one thing, whoever is winning can typically move his king up before he checkmate's his opponent.  The big change, however, is when a player starts to loose, he will usually make a quick attempt at midline invasion win.  This makes the transition between the mid- and end-game very chaotic.
Most non-chess boardgame players will find this a very exciting change; instead of a long slow grind as one player increases his advantage, the the game ends in an explosion of desperate dashes-for-the-midline.  While the player who is in a better position will still usually win, there is more hope for the loosing player.  Having more on the line, it is more exciting for both players, despite the fact that the game still usually ends as expected.
This also esentially eliminates the chess endgame--which most casual players consider the most boring.  Once a player has a significant advantage, chess tends to grind toward an inevitable conclusion.  This is why experienced chess players will conceed when the game gets past a certain point--going through the motions is just a waste of time.
As a side affect, Sirlin's Chess2 games tend to be shorter.  Modern boardgames (not chess variants) tend toward shorter is better, so non-chess enthusasts would generally consider this a good thing.

This is where Sirlin's modern boardgaming design experience is showing....he has designed a change that appeals to the masses (more exciting desperate chance of a win) and eliminated the masses least favorite part of chess (the grinding endgame) and shortened the game in one simple rule.

There is just one problem.
MOST CHESS PLAYERS DON'T LIKE IT.
I don't like it either!!!
Effectively getting rid of checkmate just feels WRONG.

Sum it up=theoretically a good change that appeals to casual players, but chess enthusists won't like it at all.

 

Dueling
Quote from offical rulebook:

Dueling

Dueling allows you to spend a new resource called stones to threaten to destroy a piece that takes one of your pieces. Try to trick the opponent into wasting his stones because if he runs out first, you automatically win any further duels.

You start with 3 stones and gain 1 stone each time you capture an enemy pawn, up to a maximum of 6 stones.

Whenever you would capture any piece, the defender can initiate a duel. If your piece is higher rank than his (ranks: pawn -> knight/bishop -> rook -> queen), he must pay 1 stone to initiate a duel. To duel, you each put 0, 1, or 2 stones in your closed fists, then simultaneously reveal them. All stones revealed are destroyed. The winner of the duel is the one who showed more stones--ties go to the attacker.

If the attacker wins a duel, he takes the piece in question as in normal Chess. If the defender wins, he still loses his piece, but the attacker ALSO loses the piece he attacked with.

Initiating a duel and bidding 0 is a bluff to make the opponent waste stones. The attacker calls your bluff by bidding 0 himself. He wins because attacker always wins on a tie and in addition, the attacker can choose to gain 1 stone or cause the defender to lose 1 stone. (A player can't have more than 6 stones.)

Kings cannot be involved in duels because they have "Diplomatic Immunity." (They can't initiate a duel or be dueled.)

Players with 0 stones cannot initiate duels, but they can be dueled against. When you duel against a player with 0 stones, you must bid 1 and you automatically win the duel. If you lose a pawn in a duel, your opponent does gain a stone.

 

Dueling is another change designed to switch the game up.  Normal chess has a very mathmatical quality to it--good players can predict moves very far in advance.  The farther forward you can think, the bigger your advantage.

Dueling changes this.  Now, sometimes you won't keep a victorious piece.  Consequently, there is only so far out it is practical to predict moves, leveling the playing field a little bit.
Dueling accomplishes this WITHOUT resorting to chance.  The number of stones each player has is public knowledge, and he who correctly reads the importance of the current board position and his opponent will win the duel.  (And the attacker has the advantage, so ties in skill will result in the same board state as if no duel occured.)  However, this requires a very different set of skills than chess.

Consequently, it is possible for someone who is really really good at typical chess to be beaten by a player who is better at reading his opponent and bidding accordingly.  Someone who is bad at bidding may be winning--until they run out of stones.  This gives the othe player a big advantage.

By broadening the useful/necessary skills to win AND lowering the ability to look ahead, a larger variety of player types can be effective players.  Plus each duel is a mini-game, which gives flashes of excitement in the middle of the game.

Again, Sirlin's skill at designing modern boardgames shows.  This is a rule that should appeal to the masses and create some excitement, while lowering the necessity of mapping out future moves.

There is just one problem.
MOST CHESS PLAYERS DON'T LIKE IT.
I don't like it either!!!
Effectively making it uncertain if you are keeping a piece just feels WRONG.

Sum it up=theoretically a good change that appeals to casual players, but chess enthusists won't like it at all.

This page contains the rules for this game:

Sirlin's Chess2-the Sequel

I agree that name reeks of hubris.  However, that page has all the discussion about the game on it.  I would be great if this page were linked to it in the main body of text.

Sorry for the confusion.  That page is under the "Related Pages" menu, but maybe the different name muddies things.  I'll try to add a link to the page contents when I get home.

I've also reformatted your comments to visually separate the rulebook quotes from your remarks.

For a while now I've been playing with the idea of defining chess pieces in strictly mathematical terms. Originally this was meant as a more flexible/descriptive alternative for Betza Funny Notation, perhaps as a way of specifying pieces for chess-variant-playing AIs, but there is also the possibility of defining operations and functions over them, and maybe even proving some things algebraically.

My early attempts were to define pieces as sets of possible paths, where paths are sequences of steps, and steps are vectors; notation would use the Kleene star for unlimited equal steps. So a wazir, for example, would be {(0,1),(1,0),(0,-1),(-1,0)}, and a rook would be {(0,1)(0,1)*,(1,0)(1,0)*,(0,-1)(0,-1)*,(-1,0)(-1,0)*}. Since most pieces are symmetrical it would make sense to parameterize this as a kind of shorthand, but since some pieces aren't symmetrical it shouldn't be assumed (in the way that "a 1,2 leaper" usually implies the (1,-2), (2,1), etc. leaps). This works for the usual steppers, leapers, and riders, and even bent riders; it's basically how people usually think of chess moves, just in more formal terms.

But this starts to get awkward where pawns are involved (and a way of describing chess pieces that has trouble with pawns is seriously flawed!). First off, we need to separate passive moves from captures. That's not too bad; we can even do so by introducing a "capture step" distinct from a passive step, which must be to a square occupied by an opposing piece, and this lets us do fun things like define the Chu Shogi Lion and the Locust. Then there's the initial double move, and promotions. We can introduce a new kind of "step" that is a promotion to another piece type to deal with these: the initial double-step can be implemented by defining a "starting pawn" that has it, where every move ends with a "promotion" to a "basic pawn" piece that doesn't. The promotion step is also strange, because it always happens at the end, but if you define operations that derive pieces from other pieces (like a "double move" operation that derives a Hook Mover from a Rook) in terms of sequence concatenation, you can end up with a promotion in the middle, or even more than one. So we've unfortunately introduced a distinction between "well-formed" and "ill-formed" pieces, and a need for some sort of normalization.

Introducing hoppers also complicates things. We have to introduce another step, one that requires a hurdle like the capture step but doesn't capture it. But now we've introduced the possibility of moves that "collapse": after all, what is the difference between a (1,2) knight move, and a pair of a regular mao-move and a mao-move over an obligatory hurdle?  Or between the latter and a pair of a regular moa-move and a moa-move over an obligatory hurdle? Equivalence is a mess.

I never found a satisfying way of dealing with en passant, or castling. Defining a piece in terms of the path is travels doesn't lend itself to a move where two pieces are repositioned.

Finally I realized that this approach fundamentally allowed for pathological alternate definitions of pieces. For example, take the rook. One or more equal orthogonal steps, right? Now let's define an "inside-out rook": a piece that leaps orthogonally directly to the square right next to its final destination, then slides by orthogonal steps until it reaches its starting square, then finally leaps directly to its final destination. This piece behaves exactly like the basic rook. It's entirely equivalent: any square it can reach, a standard rook can also reach under the same conditions, and vice versa. Yet it is considered a different piece. While the example is obviously contrived, similarly weird things could be produced by operations that concatenate or interpolate paths.