[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ][ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ][ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]Latest Ratings and CommentsLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ Earlier⇩ Earliest⇧ Jetan. Large variant from the book The Chessmen of Mars. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Greg Strong wrote on 2021-04-19 UTCOk, this change has been made. Jean-Louis Cazaux wrote on 2021-04-19 UTCI wrote this page 24 years ago and I included this: A variant Even the Martians have variants on their own type of chess. According to Burroughs, the older version of Jetan had Odwars instead of Fliers that could not jump over intervening pieces. I can't find where I had taken this information. It is simply wrong. Burroughs did not write this, actually he wrote that the Odwar and the Flier have the same power and move. It is just a different name for the SAME piece. Letting this wrong information is confusing a lot of people. I cannot modify this page myself, so I beg an editor to simply remove this small paragraph which is incorrect. Thanks Hanten Shogi. Variant of Suzumu Shogi with different promotion rules.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Eric Silverman wrote on 2021-04-16 UTC Kyoto Shogi style switchbacks could be interesting. But there is a problem: the instant a Pawn or Drunk Elephant moves, it would be forced to promote, which boosts defense early on and makes the game less interesting in my opinion. Of course, this can be easily solved by including exceptions to this rule for those pieces, and providing some sort of visual cue to match. But to me, the condition that promotion/demotion only happens on captures makes more sense, as you would need less visual cues for it. Yes, definitely some of the promotions would need to be changed to make Kyoto-Suzumu playable. It could be interesting to follow Kyoto Shogi's lead, and change the promoted sides of the Pawns/Drunk Elephants so that the pieces swap between long-range and short-range roles, rather than being defensively strong in both (and it's probably sensible to scrap the promotion to Prince entirely). Probably most of the promotions/demotions would benefit from changes, really; I agree with you that having no exceptions to the rule would be preferable, so the whole thing would have to be carefully tested. I'd be inclined to have most pieces promote/demote to pieces that don't share most of their moves, so that players have to cope with each piece having two distinct personalities from move to move. In any case, these sorts of questions are what intrigues me about the idea -- it'd be quite a design challenge :) Thanks for reintroducing the two different colours to Hanten! That's a helpful little mnemonic for players new to the switchback-capture idea. The Game of the Three Kingdoms. inese Chess for three players (Game of the Three Kingdoms). (Cells: 135) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Jacob Eugenio wrote on 2021-04-15 UTCIs there a type of game online? or here? 40x12 chess. Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Jörg Knappen wrote on 2021-04-14 UTCJust for the uninitiated stepping by here (we know what we are speaking about): The Lightweight (LW or CW) is not an amphibian, because the Wazir alone can visit the whole board. But the Troll fits the definition because of the Pawn's restrictions. Aurelian Florea wrote on 2021-04-14 UTCI agree with you on this one Jean-Louis! The Threeleaper on it's own is a very inelegant piece. Although I had used in in my Apothecary Chess classic as an unbounding addition to the modern elephant. Anyway it's peculiar coloubounding (a ninth of the board if I remember correctly) makes it somewhat fit for boards that have the number of rows and columns divisible by 3. Not exactly this case but not a problem either. But in general I prefer the H as part of a compound! Jean-Louis Cazaux wrote on 2021-04-13 UTCThe problem with the Threeleaper(H, 3,0) is that it can only reach few squares on the board. The Tripper (G, 3,3) has the same problem. Amphibians have been "invented" to mitigate this. Newt, Toad, Frog. In my large variant I use a Troll (HG+pawn). Jörg Knappen wrote on 2021-04-13 UTCThe HA piece is one of the amphibians named by Jelliss, he calls this one Newt. Lemurian Shatranj. Missing description (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Joe Joyce wrote on 2021-04-12 UTCThank you, Greg! Greg Strong wrote on 2021-04-12 UTCThanks, Joe! The next release of ChessV will have "Bent" removed from the names and the updated promotion rule. Joe Joyce wrote on 2021-04-12 UTC Greg Strong wrote on 2021-04-12 EDT A promoted colorbound piece may not be placed on the same color as the promoting player's remaining piece of that specific type. Can we please remove this rule? It needlessly complicates the game needlessly IMO. (Similar to recent discussion on Great Shatranj.) No problem. While I was looking over the rules yesterday, I saw that and considered removing it, but got called away from the keyboard and never did it. Joe Joyce wrote on 2021-04-12 UTC"Are those now the ‘default’ versions of the Hero and Shaman then?" - Bn Em Actually, the bent versions were the original design for those 2 pieces. They are made as literally half of the pieces I put in Atlantean Barroom Shatranj, but are about three quarters as effective. At that point I hadn't realized the knight was unnecessary in Lemurian because the hero did the knight's job. I'd put the heroes in the rook's positions and still had the knights in their positions, but they were too weak, and I was kinda stuck. Then the Muse granted me an inspiration. I am more wargamer than chess enthusiast, and old enough to have been there at the beginning of the wargaming hobby. One thing those early games did was compare themselves to chess, and that idea of military chess stuck in my head for decades before I took a side track by considering the limited or linear (good naming choice!) hero and shaman, and Chieftain shatranj popped into my head. Since I still hadn't gotten Lemurian right, I wrote up and posted Chieftain Chess (it sounds better than Chieftain Shatranj) before Lemurian, thus making the linear versions of hero and shaman appear to have been designed first. So, yes, courtesy of better naming and actual precedence, the "bent" versions are the default, and the linear versions are the "derived" pieces. Greg Strong wrote on 2021-04-12 UTC A promoted colorbound piece may not be placed on the same color as the promoting player's remaining piece of that specific type. Can we please remove this rule? It needlessly complicates the game needlessly IMO. (Similar to recent discussion on Great Shatranj.) Bn Em wrote on 2021-04-12 UTCAre those now the ‘default’ versions of the Hero and Shaman then? If so what do we call the non‐bent versions in the Chieftan variants: Linear (rejecting ‘straight’ as, like ‘bent’, perhaps overimplying somewhat)? Simplified Makpong. Makruk variant.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Henk Drost wrote on 2021-04-12 UTCMaybe an idea if I change the name to reduce confusion in the future? Also I have already changed some lines to make the rules more clear, but maybe there are some other additions I can make. Lemurian Shatranj. Missing description (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Joe Joyce wrote on 2021-04-12 UTCHi, Greg. No, I just noticed the piece descriptions for them were missing from the rules page. Then I got 404 errors while trying to see the alfaerie expansion sets 3, 4, and 5. So I grabbed a copy from Opulent Lemurian Shatranj (one of the very best chess variants "period!") Back when the 3 of us were kicking around ideas, David commented that the name "bent hero" might convey a little more than intended. He obviously "softened the name" by putting the "bent" part in parentheses after the piece name. And the move is still either or both of a step and a leap. The hero and shaman are powerful enough already. The necessity of taking 2 steps to go 3 squares is about the only real limitation on the pieces' ability to attack almost half the squares within 3 squares. Greg Strong wrote on 2021-04-12 UTCSo you've changed the Bent Hero and Bent Shaman to Hero and Shaman, that now move directly to all these squares rather than taking two steps, optionally turning? Simplified Makpong. Makruk variant.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Jean-Louis Cazaux wrote on 2021-04-11 UTCThank you. So, I see that I had not understood everything right. Henk Drost wrote on 2021-04-11 UTC what means "if in range"? Does that just means that the King may capture an attacking piece? If the attacking piece is not 1-square away from the King I don't see how the K would have been able to capture it anyway. You're right. The K may only move out of a check if it can capture its (singular) attacker. If the attacking piece is more than 1 square away, it obviously can't. and what means "capture out of double check". Here I understand that if 2 pieces are attacking the K, he cannot capture both of them. But that is trivial too, no? It means that if the K is double checked, it is not allowed to move out of the double check. Not even by capturing one of the attackers. So I guess that the important rule is that when a K is under check he can capture the attacking piece but it is forbidden to move the K out of check, to interpose a piece between the K and the attacking piece, or to take the attacking piece with another piece than the K. Is it correct? Or to say that when a K is under check, the only authorized move is if the K can capture the attacking piece. I'll rewrite it to be more clear. The important rule is that K can't move out of a check, except when it can capture its (singular) attacker. Other pieces are free to move, provided they're legal moves. interpose a piece between the K and the attacking piece This is legal. take the attacking piece with another piece than the K Also legal. Henk Drost wrote on 2021-04-11 UTCI first learned about "Makpong" on Github from this pull request: https://github.com/cutechess/cutechess/pull/626 The only real problem I have with this is that it still has the counting rule from Makruk. It's a little confusing and I can't describe it very well so I hope this wiki article describes it well enough for you. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makruk With my proposed simplification the counting rule gets removed. The 50 move rule and 3-fold repetition we all know and love takes its place instead. Jean-Louis Cazaux wrote on 2021-04-11 UTCAlso, I am not sure to well understand the most important rule: The King may capture an attacking piece if in range, but cannot capture out of double check. what means "if in range"? Does that just means that the King may capture an attacking piece? If the attacking piece is not 1-square away from the King I don't see how the K would have been able to capture it anyway. and what means "capture out of double check". Here I understand that if 2 pieces are attacking the K, he cannot capture both of them. But that is trivial too, no? So I guess that the important rule is that when a K is under check he can capture the attacking piece but it is forbidden to move the K out of check, to interpose a piece between the K and the attacking piece, or to take the attacking piece with another piece than the K. Is it correct? Or to say that when a K is under check, the only authorized move is if the K can capture the attacking piece. Would it be possible to re-write this with no ambiguity? Thank you Jean-Louis Cazaux wrote on 2021-04-11 UTCI have not understood if the name of this game is Makpong or Simplified Makpong. If it is Simplified M., what is Makpong? Henk Drost wrote on 2021-04-11 UTCWhile I obviously like this variant. I've also been thinking about maybe replacing the Rook with another piece. As the sole long range piece it can feel a little out of place. Maybe simply reducing the range of the Rook is already enough but one of the pizza king pieces could be cool too: https://www.chessvariants.com/unequal.dir/pizza-kings.html Even a weird piece like the sausage will be scary in this variant and will keep the battles local. Modern Shatranj. A bridge between modern chess and the historic game of Shatranj. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Kevin Pacey wrote on 2021-04-08 UTCQuestion for H.G. (or any who might know): Are two opposite-coloured FA (ferfil) elephants on average worth more than one FA plus N (or worth more than 2 Ns) on 8x8, according to computer studies? Hanten Shogi. Variant of Suzumu Shogi with different promotion rules.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Adam DeWitt wrote on 2021-04-05 UTCI have now added blue versions for the Prince and Tokin. For their Mnemonic versions, the inside of the cross/dot is hollow. 25 comments displayedLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ Earlier⇩ Earliest⇧Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.