Ratings & Comments
Sac Chess. Game with 60 pieces. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I can't believe this game hasn't been reviewed yet. This is the best game I've played that includes an Amazon. I normally leave the Amazon out of my games, because it has the power to force checkmate by itself, and that has the potential to wreak a game. However, that hasn't been a problem with this game. This game includes several other weaker compound pieces that help make it unsafe to move the Amazons out too early. To get to the point where you could use an Amazon to force checkmate against a King, you have to do lots of maneuvering of other pieces. Furthermore, the potential of the Amazon getting a bead on the King means that position is sometimes more important than material advantage. You can't count on winning just because you are ahead materially. If you find that you can't stop your opponent's Amazon, you may lose even if you're materially ahead. This makes the game more dynamic and exciting.
Apothecary Chess-Modern. Large board variant obtained through tinkering with known games.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]In the paragraf above notes I had written :
"There is no castling in this game, but the king may jump once from the initial position to c1,d1,h1 or i1 for white or c10,d10,d10,h10 for black."
And the pawn description:
"Pawns - orthodox chess pawns on a 10x10 board from the point of view of movement and capture but that may promote starting the 8th rank according to the above mentioned piece categories provided that the reserve holds the piece required. Pawns may promote to any auxiliary piece on the players 8th rank, any auxiliary piece or average piece at the 9th rank, and any piece at rank 10. In the reserve there are initially 1 queen, 1 rook,1 champion and 1 knight and later on enter any of the player's lost pieces. "
Comparing this page to your Game Courier code, I see things in your code that I don't see on this page, such as rules concerning Pawn promotion and the King's first move.
Gross Chess. A big variant with a small learning curve. (12x12, Cells: 144) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Have you any ideea Fergus, at first glance what would be the correct instruction to decrease the value of the just pormoted, in the RESERVE array?
Apothecary Chess-Classic. Large board variant obtained through tinkering with known games.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
H. G. Muller wrote on Thu, Mar 26, 2020 08:01 AM EDT:Indeed, if there is a diagonal path from Joker to King, Bishops and Queens would be pinned.
If there is a diagonal path of a black Joker to f1 (say from d3), I would not think that this would forbid O-O, because it also doesn't forbid Kf1,
The tricky question is what to do when the Joker has a diagonal path do e1 (say from c3). Can white castle now, or is he in check, and consequently cannot? This again depends on how one imagines the Joker to move after a turn pass. And if he keeps his old move in that case, it depends on the previously moved piece.
HG,
Some interpretation could be on game by game basic and it's inventor should cover all details. I have not thought on everything, but the joker is definetly an interesting piece.
As you stated the rule :"Checking power is defined as the ability to make an actual capture after the opponent passes his turn (thus giving the turn back to the owner of the checking piece)." you agree with me when I had said that if the joker in unbostucted on the same diagonal with the king all the bishops friendly to the king are pinned.
H. G. Muller wrote on Thu, Mar 26, 2020 05:57 AM EDT:But that's not true of other pieces. Other pieces retain checking power during the opponent's move.
That is exactly what I disagre with. Checking power is defined as the ability to make an actual capture after the opponent passes his turn (thus giving the turn back to the owner of the checking piece).
So the question is really how the Joker must move after a turn pass, because such a turn pass cannot be assigned to any particular piece. Must it then also pass its turn, or does it retain the powers it had on the move before? This question is important to distinguish checkmate from stalemate.
For 'passing through check' turn passing plays no role, though. The King was already moving when it reached the square it aims to pass through. The logical approach is to evaluate the situation under the fiction that he would stop there, and then the last move would have been a King move. So I would say the Joker has to be assumed to move as a King in order to judge whether the King passed through its attack. Even when the ultimate rule for Joker movement after a complete castling would be that it should move like a Rook. (E.g. because castling according to FIDE rules must first move the King, and then the Rook, so the Rook would be the last moved piece.)
Wizard's War. Game with piece-creating Wizards and a board divided into arena and enchanted sections. (10x10, Cells: 84) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Well hey, apparently I never commented on this!
I quite like it! The interplay between needing pieces on the arena/safer on the enchanted squares is quite unusual.
Creating your own army is fun, and ensures no game start will be quite the same.
This is a very cohesive & well thought out variant.
Apothecary Chess-Classic. Large board variant obtained through tinkering with known games.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]When you'll succeed with the joker piece there will still be work to be done with the 2 apothecaries. I can do this part I think. I currently have 1 working preset for each baring the presence of a joker.
Gross Chess. A big variant with a small learning curve. (12x12, Cells: 144) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I'll bear that in mind while working on a new preset for Grand Chess. With that as a foundation, I can start on a new and improved preset for Gross Chess.
Apothecary Chess-Classic. Large board variant obtained through tinkering with known games.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]One thing I just thought of is that the regular stalemated subroutine will not work for a game with the Joker. To factor in how moving a particular piece change's the checking power of the Joker, it should regulary update the value of lastpiece.
While looking up the correct name of the variable, I saw that I had used the wrong variable name in some places last night. When I corrected that, I was able to move the Joker in my fork of the Apothecary Chess 1 preset.
There are still more things to be done, but not right away.
Greg Strong wrote on Wed, Mar 25, 2020 10:20 AM EDT:1. The Joker has the same powers of movement as the last piece the opponent moved, which is what I've been trying to program with my Joker function. [Emphasis mine]
To do that, wouldn't you need White_Joker and Black_Joker subroutines? As I understand your code, a piece move changes the move of both jokers, but perhaps you've changed it from the snippit you posted or I don't fully understand it.
Gross Chess. A big variant with a small learning curve. (12x12, Cells: 144) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I found a bug in the Gross Chess preset.
It seems you had forgotten to decrease the number of pieces in reserve once a piece was promoted to. You may reproduce the bug following the below steps:
1. arrange the capture of wizards
2. Use a pawn to promote to wizard
3. Use again a pawn to promote to the same wizard
I don't think that is what you intended.
Apothecary Chess-Classic. Large board variant obtained through tinkering with known games.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]As I had said earlier the joker gains the power at the end of the opponent's move and retains it until the next time the opponent moves. I could have made myself not clear enough. So if the joker is unobstructed on the same diagonal like the enemy king it pins all bishops and queens the enemy has, because it would mean that the opponent has moved into check!
The power is almost in full (so Fergus in your question it is number 2). That is because the games could be quite imbalanced if a joker promotes to queen and a joker can easily move across the board compared to a pawn. Once again there is no castling in this game but some leaps for the unmoved king.
Because then it is no longer that players turn, and a Joker is not allowed to move in the opponent's turn.
That's true of every piece on the board.
So during the opponent's turn it has no powers at all.
But that's not true of other pieces. Other pieces retain checking power during the opponent's move.
I would imagine that the Joker retains whatever power it used to move until the opponent moves another piece, thereby giving it a different power of movement. For example, if the Joker moves as a Rook and checks the King, the King would be in check, and one way to remove that check would be to move a Bishop, which would change the Joker's powers of movement.
H. G. Muller wrote on Wed, Mar 25, 2020 08:58 AM EDT:I would say the borrowed power of the Joker ends after the player owning the Joker moved it, or moved something else. Because then it is no longer that players turn, and a Joker is not allowed to move in the opponent's turn. So during the opponent's turn it has no powers at all.
The rule is that the joker moves like the last move of the opponent.
As stated, that's too ambiguous. Here are some possible interpretations:
1. The Joker has the same powers of movement as the last piece the opponent moved, which is what I've been trying to program with my Joker function.
2. The Joker mostly has the same powers of movement as the last piece the opponent moved, but there are exceptions for particular pieces. For example, it might not be able to promote or castle.
3. The Joker is limited to the type of move of the opponent's last move. For example, if the opponent moved a Queen, diagonally, the Joker would be able to move diagonally, but not orthogonally.
4. The Joker is limited to the type and direction of the opponent's last move. For example, if the Queen moved vertically forward, the Joker could move vertically forward, but it could not move vertically backward, horizontally, or diagonally.
5. The Joker is limited to the type, direction, and distance of the opponent's last move. For example, if the Queen moved vertically forward 4 spaces, the Joker could move vertically forward up to four spaces.
6. The Joker is limited to the type, direction, and precise distance of the opponent's last move. For example, if the Queen moved vertically forward 4 spaces, the Joker could move vertically forward 4 spaces, no more and no less.
The rule is that the joker moves like the last move of the opponent. This game does not have a castling but it will come to it in other games. Castling is generally considered a king move. There is a king may leap once a game rule. That it. I think the confusion related to when the loan of power ends not when it begins. That happens when the oppnent has just moved. I'm not sure I understand the qustions otherwise/
H. G. Muller wrote on Wed, Mar 25, 2020 06:04 AM EDT:I always like the 'not castling through check' rule as a form of e.p. capture: the King makes a double step, and can then be taken by a capture-capable move to the square it passed through in the subsequent move. As exposing your King to capture is illegal, such a castling would be illegal.
In this interpretation it would be legal to castle over a square that was diagonally attacked by the Joker from a distance, as after the castling that Joker would no longer move like a Bishop, and thus not be able to execute the e.p. capture of the King. I am not sure how the Joker moves after castling: as a Rook, as a King, both or neither. The rules would have to specify that. If it would move as a King, then a black Joker on e2 would make white castling illegal, as that Joker could in the reply become a King and attack f1/d1. Basically the rule would become: the King cannot pass a square during castling that it could not legally move to.
It is always a tricky question whether a Joker can deliver check. In most positions this is not important, as most moves would alter the Joker's capabilities in a way that resolved the check. But it can be important to distinguish checkmate from stalemate. Basically the question boils down to how the Joker would move after a turn pass of the opponent, because the 'in-check' definition involves the fiction of a turn pass. Must it also pass a turn, or will it just keep the move it had on the turn before? In the former case the position w:Ke3, Je2 b:Ke1 would be a stalemate, in the latter case it might be a checkmate (if white black moved Ke1 on the move before).
First there is no castling in this game.
I realize I have to give more details regarding the joker. The rule is that it imitates the last move of the opponent. And this rule has that pawns issue.
On your question Greg. The switch of the imitated piece is when the move is completed. In this case the bishop move would be illegal because it places the black king in check.
About the en passant thing. This is something I have not thought properly. The philosophy behind this brings at least 2 cases.
1. the joker does not capture en passant ever as en passant is a property of a pawn and not a move. As I had decided that joker may not promote this should be the case.
2. the joker may capture en passant at the 6th rank like any pawn.
I prefer 1 but I'd like a small comment.
In my fork of the Apothecary Chess 1 preset, the problem I've currently come up against may be due to endless recursion. When I try moving the Joker, the script crashes. What I think is happening is that after the Joker moves, it runs code for the other Joker, and now that the value of lastpiece is j or J, the Joker function recursively calls itself again and again without ever exiting. I just tried one way of fixing this, but it didn't solve the problem. Since it's late, I will not continue with any more attempts tonight. I just wanted to share what I think the problem is.
Greg Strong wrote on Tue, Mar 24, 2020 06:20 PM EDT:Other questions:
Say white moves a bishop. Now black's joker could move like a bishop - but instead black moves a rook. Now its white's move and he wants to castle, but he cannot castle if in check. To decide if he is in check, does black's joker still attack like a bishop, or does it attack like a rook? Or neither?
Argument for attacking like a bishop: white's joker immitates black's last move and black's bishop immitates white's last move. Black moving only changes the move of white's joker.
Argument for attacking like a rook: any move changes the move of both jokers. This is the easiest to program but I don't like it.
Argument for neither: white's joker moves like black's last move only when white is on the move. After white moves, his joker has no attack power until black moves again.
It is also important to determine exactly when the change happens. Say white wants to make a normal king move and black's joker still attacks as a bishop. Does this mean that the white king cannot move onto the bishop's diagonal because that is moving into check? Or has the fact that, as soon as white moves his king the black joker moves as a king, mean that the white king is not in check?
Greg Strong wrote on Tue, Mar 24, 2020 05:58 PM EDT:Sorry - yes, I wasn't thinking your question through. Still, I think the Joker should forward when imitating a pawn. If white moves a pawn two spaces, should the black joker (now imitating that pawn) be able to capture en passant? If so, it needs to move forward (or things would be really strange.)
The problem was caused by using #lastpiece instead of var lastpiece. The former inserts the value into the line during preprocessing, which doesn't work out so well for null or empty values, while the latter looks it up while evaluating the expression. These will work instead.
def Joker fn const alias var lastpiece #0 #1;
def Joker-Range fn join const alias var lastpiece "-Range" #0;
One thing that has come up while examining your code is how you want the Joker to move after a piece that moves differently for each side, such as the Pawn. Should it move as the enemy Pawn, which is how it currently works, or as its own Pawn? For the latter, these should work:
def Joker fn const alias flipcase var lastpiece #0 #1;
def Joker-Range fn join const alias flipcase var lastpiece "-Range" #0;
While these changes eliminate the problem you were having, there is still a problem with actually moving the Joker piece. One problem is that the Joker doesn't properly handle pieces that use subroutines instead of functions. But even with pieces that just use functions, it is not working properly. I'm getting too tired to continue looking into this today. Maybe I'll make more progress tomorrow.
Sorry Greg, but I did not made myself clear enough. I meant the joker. If the joker should be allowed to move ahead when imitating a pawn, or backward. This was the quenstion. I always took it for granted that the imitation was to be ahead, but technically speaking a white joker imitates a black one who moves backwards. Letting it to move ahead (as it comes natural to me though) would be an exception the the main rule that the joker imitates enemy pieces. Technicalities aside I still think that moving ahead is better.
Greg Strong wrote on Tue, Mar 24, 2020 12:33 PM EDT:Allowing a pawn to move backward would be a very radical change and I doubt it would make a better game. It certainly would be less of a "chess variant".
Here is the link for apothecary modern which does not have aliases:
https://www.chessvariants.com/play/pbm/play.php?game=Apothecary+Chess+1&settings=Apothecary1working
and one that it does
https://www.chessvariants.com/play/pbm/play.php?game=Apothecary+Chess+2&settings=Apothecary2working
While working for the presets for this game and it's twin, the thought of how the joker imitates a pawn moving ahead like the allied pawns, or backward like the enemy pawns. I always took it for granted that it moves like allied pawns, but it could go the other way around also. What do you guys think?
I was just getting the same kind of error while working on updating Grand Chess to use the fairychess include file. To fix it, I had to make sure my piece assignments were complete, and since I was using an alias for the Cardinal, I had to make sure that the alias operator got used in all the appropriate places.
Give me a link to where you are using this code with a list of moves that result in this error message.
2 weeks ago you proposed the following code
def Joker fn const alias #lastpiece #0 #1;
def Joker-Range fn join const alias #lastpiece "-Range" #0;
for the joker piece. I got an "function has not been defined error" at the call in the checked function:
if fn const alias #piece #from var king
Also this line works fine with the other pices (I had tried it).
Pole Chess. Missing description (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I do expect this to be more drawish than fide chess. I think you would need to pair this with some other significant changes to the game in order to fully take advantage of it. Like maybe more power on the board, or another win condition, or a drop mechanic or something.
I'm most interested in what this would do to the opening though. That would be fun to see.
Xhess. Decimal variant with Nightriders and Cannons. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]This variant was very influential on me; I found it specifically because I was looking for variants that used cannons, but the pawns really hooked me.
I'm in agreement that the starting position is odd. I would push everything back a row, and then just find a starting square for the nightriders that makes sure they're not immediately attacking anything.
This is kind of a criticism of the nightrider itself, but in practice it's probably not fun to constantly keep track of what pieces it's threatening from far away. The piece seems fun but I feel like there are other possibilities that don't require so much 'proofreading' of the board.
I like the 'king reaches the last row' win condition. On such a large board, especially if everything were pushed back a row to begin with, it may be logical to change that to 'king passes the midline.' Not necessary, but not an extreme possibility either.
Tridimensional Chess (Star Trek). Three-dimensional chess from Star Trek. (7x(), Cells: 64) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Thanks for the information. I looked through the scenes in these two episodes, and I found the Gothic set in "The Naked Time," but I could not find any scene with 3D Chess in "Day of the Dove." Curiously, both episodes had Sulu wielding a sword.
Hi There! Ganine's Gothic chess pieces were indeed used on the original series. You can see them in The Naked Time, and Day of the Dove. I believe there may be other instances. I can tell you that Star Trek Continues would never have use Chess pieces that were not authentic. Loved your article. - Doug Drexler
Salmon P. Chess. Huge three-dimensional game celebrating 10 years chess variant pages. (10x(), Cells: 7500) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Absurdly extravagant is the phrase that comes to mind!
Nothing else quite like this on the website; a true push-the-theoretical-envelope, but still playable, variant. It's amusingly written, too. Great job!
Fusion Chess. Variant in which pieces may merge together or split apart. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]On second thought, this makes the Queen immune to the Cavalier King capturing it as a Knight. However, the Queen is also immune to being captured at a distance by the other royal pieces. Each compound royal piece can capture two of the simple pieces at a distance. The Cavalier King can capture the Rook or Bishop at a distance, the Dragon King can capture the Bishop or Knight, and what I'm now calling the Pontiff can capture the Rook or Knight. So, it's all symmetrical, and if I made an exception for the Cavalier King's Knight leap, that would make it more formidable than the other two compound royal pieces.
It could not make a Knight leap if both spaces adjacent to it and its destination were checked. However, this would not apply to checks from royal pieces. This would allow the Cavalier King to check another royal piece with different powers of movement.
Not quite. To be in line with how other royal compounds work, it would be able to check another royal piece without restriction, but checks from the opponent's royal piece would still otherwise impede its movement.
Based on my experiences with Zillions of Games, I think that the Dragon King is too tough to checkmate (and, perhaps, so are the Pope and Eques Rex).
I'm thinking of borrowing a rule from Metamachy for limiting the movement of the Eques Rex, which I'm planning to rename Cavalier King. In that game, a King may leap two spaces on its first move, but it may not pass through check. To make a Knight move, it must have an unchecked path to the space. So, I'm thinking of limiting the Cavalier King in that way. It could not make a Knight leap if both spaces adjacent to it and its destination were checked. However, this would not apply to checks from royal pieces. This would allow the Cavalier King to check another royal piece with different powers of movement.
Cavalier Chess handles the power of this piece by giving greater power to the other pieces, but in Fusion Chess, the pieces have the same total power as they do in Chess, and all that's different is having the ability to more fluidly redistribute power among the pieces. So, weakening the royal piece in this game seems more called for.
Elevator. Three-dimensional chess variant with moving elevators and walking, vaulting and flying pieces. (4x(8x8), Cells: 192) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Very good, well-thought out game, with pieces which compliment the board--some require elevator movement, some use the empty shafts, and the ox can use them to capture. Nicely done.
I will say the rules allowing the flying pieces to go 'up, through an elevator trapdoor' feel very unintuitive; especially if playing with a physical set. It makes more sense to me to allow flying pieces to go either up or down through the empty shafts only; this would also make it impossible to threaten an identical piece without also being in danger.
Still, a very good variant!
Chu Shogi. Historic Japanese favorite, featuring a multi-capturing Lion. (12x12, Cells: 144) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]No, those discussions are about the interactive diagrams.
Wa Shogi. Game with many different rather weak pieces, with or without drops. (11x11, Cells: 121) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]📝H. G. Muller wrote on Mon, Mar 9, 2020 11:26 AM EDT:Ughh, this was a case of a >= that should have been a > in the Diagram script. The algorithm is that the promoOffset is added to promotable pieces (all types from 1 up to and including maxPromote) to get the promoted type. When this gets larger than the number of defined pieces, it is replaced by the promoted type of the first piece. The latter was introduced to not explicitly have to define all the Golds that result from promotion of a host of different Maka Dai Dai Shogi or Thai Shogi pieces; if the first piece is a Pawn, and promotes to Tokin, all pieces that also promote to Tokin can then be put last amongst the set of promotable pieces. After that can follow the unpromotable pieces, and then all the promoted types that are explicitly defined. So if (say) maxPromote=10, and promoOffset=15, piece 1 will promote to piece 16, pieces 11-15 will be unpromotable. Piece 16 and higher are the promoted types. But if only six are defined (16-21), these will be the promoted versions of 1-6, and 7-10 will all promote the same as 1, to 16.
I fixed it now, thanks for reporting.
A. M. DeWitt wrote on Mon, Mar 9, 2020 09:28 AM EDT:When I try to promote a Flying Falcon, it promotes to a Tokin instead of a Tenacious Falcon. However, this can be easily fixed by making the King the last piece and changing the parameters accordingly.
Dai Shogi. Large armies including a multi-capturing Lion battle each other on a big board. (15x15, Cells: 225) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]A. M. DeWitt wrote on Mon, Mar 9, 2020 09:27 AM EDT:When I try to promote a Dragon King, it promotes to a Tokin instead of a Soaring Eagle. However, this can be easily fixed by making the King the last piece and changing the parameters accordingly.
Chu Shogi. Historic Japanese favorite, featuring a multi-capturing Lion. (12x12, Cells: 144) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]A. M. DeWitt wrote on Mon, Mar 9, 2020 09:26 AM EDT:When I try to promote a Dragon King, it promotes to a Tokin instead of a Soaring Eagle. However, this can be easily fixed by making the King the last piece and changing the parameters accordingly.
Fusion Chess. Variant in which pieces may merge together or split apart. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]> It would need some rule that you cannot move a royal slider through check, like in Caissa Brittannia, to make it a serious game.
Since I was just thinking of another rule I wanted to change, I opened my .zrf file for this game to see how I could make the change. When I did open it, I noticed that I made some rule updates in 2006, but I never changed the rules on this page. One of the rules was the one you suggested here. Here are my comments from the .zrf file:
; *** Rules changed in February 2006 ; *** King cannot initiate fusion. ; *** Simple pieces may initate fusion with King. ; *** Dragon King and Pope may not move through check.
As the rules are currently written, the King may initiate fusion, but another piece may not initiate fusion with the King. Two of the rule changes above reverse this. This might be to prevent the King from using fusion to get out of check.
The new rule I'm thinking of adding limits the use of fission for getting out of check. I initially thought of just forbidding fission for getting out of check, but it seems simpler to forbid fission by a piece that is currently attacked. This prevents the two ways fission could be used to get out of check that would tilt the advantage in favor of defense. One is if a royal compound piece is in check, and the player splits off the non-royal component to block the check. The other is if a pinned piece is blocking one check, and it splits off one of its components to block another check. This is more permissive in some ways and more restrictive in some ways than the other condition I thought of. It is more permissive, because it allows a check to be blocked by splitting apart an unpinned piece. It is more restrictive, because it does not allow any attacked piece to split apart.
Its main advantage is that it will require less overhead. In Zillions, I can just add "not-attacked?" to the appropriate code, and in Game Courier, the legal fission moves will all correspond with other legal moves, which eliminates the need to write extra code for calculating possible fission moves. Since that advantage would be lost if I used both conditions, I will just use the simpler condition. So, the rule I'm thinking of adding is that it is illegal to split apart a piece that is attacked.
I am currently in the process of programming a Game Courier preset for Fusion Chess. When I have finished with that, and when I have updated the Zillions file, I'll officially update the rules.
Hunterbeest. Large variant with one each of distinctive Nimrod pieces, and of similar set of oblique pieces. (11x10, Cells: 110) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]The Zebra+Knight versions of the Hartebeest are bound to 1/4th of the board
Xhess. Decimal variant with Nightriders and Cannons. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]This looks like a decent 10x10 variant; it has the basic Chess pieces--with more mobile Pawns-- and well-known Knightriders & XiangQi Cannons.
The King game-winning 'promotion' rule could liven up the endgames without totally changing the game.
However, I am confused as to the logic behind the apparently abitrary initial setup. The Rooks have an open rank (like Grand Chess) which is fine. But the Horsemen (modified Pawns) are more mobile--but start very close to each other. So close, in fact, they can't use their forward most moves initially without being captured. Except the Horsemen on the far ends; they start one rank farther back for no discernable reason.
The forward pawn lines leave a bunch of space to the rear; considering the vast area there aren't very many other pieces.
Also, the Knights are back a rank from the Horsemen, consequently they cannot move forward as the first move. They are protecting Horsemen, but it seems like there ought to be another way to do this.
Xhess is quite playable, but I'm left with the impression the starting setup could use an overhaul.
Deception Chess. Each piece has two identities, Cloak and concealed Base.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]This is a really good idea, the only problem being it really needs a custom Chess set.
I'm guessing it would require similar bluffing strategy like Stratego. I can see myself thinking "hummm, that faux Pawn can't be anything valuable, it's too exposed.... unless that's what he wants me to think....or, he could be counting on me to think that's what he wants me to think...."
:-)
This actually has a decent chance of commercial success, in my opinion. It's got 'wow' factor, but close enough to normal Chess to feel familiar.
Great idea.
Rotary. On a 9 by 9 board with rotating pieces. (9x9, Cells: 81) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Today played a game of Rotary with a set of pieces I made myself. It is a very nice game. The rotational element adds a nice layer of tactics. Only thing that feels weird is the promotion rule
Euchess. Grand chess variant on 10 by 10 board. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]In my opinion, this is not a very good Grand Chess variant.
Grand Chess is built upon two main ideas; getting rid of castling by freeing the Rooks in the back rank, and introducing the two 'missing' compounds to be additional high-value pieces--the Cardinal & Marshall.
Euchess moves the Rooks back and re-introduces castling, and then doubles the number of Cardinals & Marshalls--but, inconsistently, keeps one Queen.
Ignoring the lack of numerical consistency, this is really bad from a playable perspective--the sheer number of power pieces diminished the value of Knights & Bishops significantly.
Euchess is much too top-heavy, power wise, and significantly dimishes the point of the open back row. (Marshalls, with their Knight move, don't need the room to be developed.)
I think there is room for some interesting variants of Grand Chess, but this isn't one of them.
Enep. An experimental variant with enhanced knights and an extra pawn. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I have done an experiment in an attempt to settle how close the two, almost the same, armies.
The engine used was the latest chessV. The total number of games was 128. Out of which:
Augmented Knight won 31
Extra Pawn won 41
Draws 56
Score: EP 69-59 AN which is around 53% for the winner.
Hippodrome. Solitaire game using a small board. (4x4, Cells: 16) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Another thought on possible 2 players Hippodrome variant.
A few days ago I've read about an "L-game":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L_game
They say, it was ivented as mathematician and psychologist in their speech concluded that the chess game is to complicated, which obstructs it's elegance, and so the psychologist decided to invent an L-game instead. We have to admit that chess game is really quite artificial and heavy, and so are most of chess variants (despite the fact that European chess set is pretty logical compared to it's Indian ancestor or Chinese and Japanese sisters).
But it bothered me that they actually came to quite different game - why they had this answer to chess if there are already many games that are quite modest and mathematically-elegant, like, say, Go? (Let alone that this L-game seems solvable and have a perfect play.) And I thought that there shold be some game that gives the actual essence of chess, while being mathematically-compact, not enheavied by artificial things.
There are two main features that make chess the chess. Different piece movements and a special role of the King. Second one actually seems more artificial, but I guess there is game that could give the mathematical essence of checks and checkmates, but let's leave it for further thinking now.
And suddenly it stroke me that some 2-player variant of Hippodrome actually could be that mathematical essence of "different piece movements". See - it consists of different moves, brought to 15-game. It also gas the perfect size - it brings practically all these most basic pieces, not more or less in sane sense (consider all these camels and dababahs rather derivative things).
Yet, I can't say about it's solvability. It have muuuch more possible setups than L-game, but it seems that in most of situations it have less possible turns.
What do you thing on all that matter?
I guess it could be an interesting game for two (either with neutral queen or with swapping instead of moving to empty space, with prohibition on undoing opponent's moves in both cases), where players have to get certain poker-like combinations in a limited number of turns or to be the first to achieves several goal.
Robber-Baron. Which of the seven robbers is the robber-baron? (7x7, Cells: 39) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I have to comment it for having simple yet original rules, promising a good entertainment, perhaps even well commercially-sold.
Linear Pursuit. Members-Only Each player has a King/Queen, 2 Bishops, 2 Knights, 2 Rooks and 7 Pawns which are positioned on the circumference of a circle.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.
Grasshopper Chess. Each player has eight additional grasshoppers.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Server load rarely gets very high, and the rare peak of high server load does not correlate with the site going down. So, even though tables could also work, I'm not worried that using single images will increase the load too much. Also, it has been simple enough to replace various JavaScript diagrams with generated images, because I could reuse the FEN string from the JavaScript with only occassional modifications.
H. G. Muller wrote on Wed, Feb 19, 2020 01:51 PM EST:Ah OK. I overlooked that. So drawdiagram + arguments is as good as a fixed image, and Cloudfare will carry most of the burden for supplying it. There still could be some concern as to whether Cloudfare would cache unique images of an entire board long enough for the caching to be actually helpful, while individual pieces of the various sets would be requested so often that they would never leave the Cloudfare cache.
Broken ranks is of course awful, and it is good you fix that. But it should be possible to produce good-looking board images from individual piece images through HTML tables (this is what the Interactive Diagram does), so I wondered if it would not have been better (for the server load) to fix it that way.
I exempted it from the rule that Cloudflare will not cache PHP scripts. Cloudflare caches the output of this script for different query strings.
H. G. Muller wrote on Wed, Feb 19, 2020 11:30 AM EST:Now I am confused. I thought you exempted PHP scripts from caching by Cloudfare, through one of the rules. I don't see how it could be otherwise. PHP scripts are running on the server, not in the client. Surely Cloudfare is not running PHP for us? That would be a much heavier task than just caching the output these generate. (And how would it get the scripts? Normally scripts should not be loadable from other machines, just their output.)
As I mentioned to you not too long ago, the script used to draw this picture is cached by Cloudflare. Also, the previous diagram had ranks broken into two rows and looked really bad.
H. G. Muller wrote on Wed, Feb 19, 2020 03:46 AM EST:You do realize that this drives up the bandwidth it requires to download the page, and increases the server load? Browsers would display a table of individual piece images without any further server access, once the complete Alfaerie set is in their browser cache. And the most commonly used pieces certainly would be, from visiting other pages on this site. Perhaps a rare piece (such as the Grasshopper) would have to requested once (from Cloudfare!), and then the user would have that cached too.
A monolythic image of the entire position would be unique for every article though, and have to be downladed. Using a PHP script to generate the image 'on the fly' means it cannot even be cached by Cloudfare.
Expanded Chess. An attempt at a logical expansion of Chess to a 10x10 board.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Yes, I should have included pawn moves in that. I meant 100 full moves but that probably is excessive.
I think I'll just remove the last to move wins stuff from here. I still like the idea but it might make more sense as a separate variant all by itself.
My reasoning for using zebras rather than camels is that I think it matches the other added pieces better. The gryphon starts with a diagonal step and continues as a rook, and the zebra's move can be described similarly. It begins with a diagonal step and then continues as a knight, jumping over any occupied squares on the way.
I'll try to fix the diagrams and rules.
Expanded Chess 256. The Chess experience upscaled to a larger board. (16x16, Cells: 256) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Greg Strong wrote on Tue, Feb 18, 2020 12:15 PM EST:I added a diagram and performed a few minor edits to improve the text.
Expanded Chess. An attempt at a logical expansion of Chess to a 10x10 board.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Greg Strong wrote on Tue, Feb 18, 2020 11:31 AM EST:My thoughts -
Zebra: The Camel is the more common complement to the Knight. I think a Zebra is OK on a 10x10 board but would be less mobile than the Knight because more moves would be off-board (although a Camel is color-bound so also weaker than a Knight, but I think this is OK because a Bishop is a colorbound piece that could be considered the complement of the Rook.) Also, if you keep the Zebra, I think you should keep the name as-is.
No Draws: I'm not sure how advisible this is. The point of Stalemate is to give the player who is behind something to play for. For repetition and 100-move rule, at a minimum, the written description needs to be clarified. It currently says the "last player to move" wins, but your comment says "last to capture". And for 100-move, do you mean "last to capture or push a pawn"? That would make more sense. And do you mean 100 half-moves, like the Chess 50-move rule? Or do you really mean 100 full moves? I think that would be too much and I don't see any reason to increase it at all. Personally, I'd scrap all of this and leave all the victory/draw conditions as in orthodox Chess, but that is just personal opinion.
Ben Reiniger wrote on Tue, Feb 18, 2020 08:11 AM EST:In the intervening time, we've had submissions from strong community members who do not have their real names displayed on these pages. I (and I think we?) still have a slight preference for real names, for the encyclopedic nature of the site, but there are many sites now where site-famous people are later referred to as "user xyz of site abc," so maybe it's fine.
Another thing that changed in the time since your submission: the Diagram Designer. The use of a period to denote a dot on the board (for movement diagrams) has been deprecated; you can replace them with a pound symbol (#), or a few other options.
Wow, I didn't even see this until now. I'm sorry. In both checkmate and stalemate, the last move is the one that checkmates or traps the other player, so the player who is trapped loses. With insufficient material or repetition, the last player to capture would win. The winning condition was intended as an experiment in defining a drawless chess game. I have no idea if it would actually be more interesting or not than any alternative.
The other thing I'm not sure about is the zebras. Their jump fits with the other pieces but maybe it's too far for a board this small?
If my name is required I can add that
Maka Dai Dai Shogi. Pieces promote on capture, some to multi-capturing monsters. (19x19, Cells: 361) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]📝H. G. Muller wrote on Thu, Feb 13, 2020 11:13 AM EST:I discussed this once with an official of the Japanese Chu Shogi Association, who wanted to revive the interest in Maka Dai Dai Shogi, and had written a manuscript defining the 'modern' rules. He insisted that it would be the last piece captured. And for a Lion Dog he insisted that jumping two squares out to capture something, and then retract one square to capture what you jumped over, was not a legal Lion-Dog move, but that you would always have to capture what is on the adjacent square in the outgoing leg if you wanted to finish there.
It didn't make much sense to me. I would also be happy if you were allowed to choose. Of course this is all highly theoretical; no one would allow both his most-valuable pieces to be in Lion or Lion-Dog range.
A. M. DeWitt wrote on Thu, Feb 13, 2020 10:14 AM EST:If you were to capture both a Deva/Teaching King and a Dark Spirit/Buddhist Spirit with a multi-capturing piece such as a Lion or Lion Dog, which piece would you promote it to? The rules state that the promotions of these pieces are contagious, but do not elaborate on which promotion has priority when a multi-capturing piece captures a Deva/Teaching King and a Dark Spirit/Buddhist Spirit in a single move. See the promotion rules in Taishin Shogi for some possibilities.
Opulent Chess. A derivative of Grand Chess with additional jumping pieces (Lion and Wizard). (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]💡📝Greg Strong wrote on Wed, Feb 12, 2020 08:14 PM EST:Yes, I will be updating the GC presets. I just want to modify them to use the new fairychess include file while I'm at it and did not get that finished last weekend. But we have a 3-day weekend coming up so it should get finished.
That table of piece values is quite old so I wouldn't put any stock in it. Probably doesn't match at all with what I am currently using in ChessV (which gets updated more often.) The Archbishop is too low probably because I was relying on Betza's logic which significantly undervalues it, but I would not claim that these values are what he would have calculated. Also, the table shows the value of sliding pieces going up in the endgame, which made sense since there are less obstructions, but seems to not actually be true in most cases. (The value of the Pawn going up is true, though.)
@ Greg:
1) Now that the setup for Opulent Chess has been changed from the original, are there definite plans to change the preset to match the new setup anytime soon?
2) On the piece values offered, the one for the Archbishop being 7.5 (and Q=10) stands out. Does the table of values entirely concur with what Betza himself might have calculated for the piece values of Opulent Chess, for on 10x10, with the given armies in the setup?
Nachtmahr. Game with seven different kinds of Nightriders. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]wouldn't a 8th nightrider be possible which goes left-right for both vertical and horizontal moves?
Apothecary Chess-Modern. Large board variant obtained through tinkering with known games.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I hope you guys enjoy the new version of this game. For now, the rules enforcing and move displaying are an ongoing job, for me to do. After that I hope to see you soon!...
Apothecary Chess-Classic. Large board variant obtained through tinkering with known games.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I hope you guys enjoy the new version of this game. For now, the rules enforcing and move displaying are an ongoing job, for me to do. After that I hope to see you soon!...
Red Fool Chess. Standard Chess, but with two extra rows and one semi autonomous piece, the Red Fool.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Greg Strong wrote on Fri, Jan 31, 2020 05:55 PM EST:To clarify all that - this is a multi-move game. The player that attacks the Red Fool then gets a second move in which he must move it according to these criteria (assuming it has a legal move.)
the RF will not move to nor will it attack on any square that is defended by any white or black piece
there is a hierarchy to its movements - empty, undefended square first (choice of player who threatened it), or attack on the lowest value piece that is undefended (in case of more than one of equal low value, choice of player who threatened the RF during his normal turn move)
any color piece may threaten the RF and force it to move
yes. the RF must move if threatened, unless it has no possible move.
yes, if the players move threatens the RF, then the RF moves and that player has a choice of the RF's limited movement options
The RF can only move if threatened. It can not move to defended square. It will always move to an empty undefended square first (choice of player who threatened it), if it can't do that it will attack the player who threatened it with her choice of lowest value pieces. If the Fool has no move, it does not move -it just blocks until either side's move threatens it. The player who threatens has the only choice of the limited moves available to the RF.
Ben Reiniger wrote on Fri, Jan 31, 2020 03:00 PM EST:I've just realized I don't actually know when the red fool moves from the text. I'd assume it doesn't have its own turn, but instead acts as a piece that one of the players can move during their turn? Must it be moved if it is attacked, and (especially if so) does the player get to move the RF in addition to or just instead of one of their own pieces? Does "attacked" depend on whose turn it is (i.e., if the RF is attacked only by a black piece, can black move the RF)?
I still don't completely understand "safe"/"either empty or undefended": is there a priority among the three options (an empty and unthreatened square, an empty but threatened square, and an occupied but unthreatened square)? I guess here "threatened" doesn't depend on piece colors?
Apothecary Chess-Classic. Large board variant obtained through tinkering with known games.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]@The Editors
These days I had tried to finalize the rules of my 2 apothecary games.
This should be the final version of this article pending review.
Apothecary Chess-Modern. Large board variant obtained through tinkering with known games.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]@The Editors
These days I had tried to finalize the rules of my 2 apothecary games.
This should be the final version of this article pending review.
Red Fool Chess. Standard Chess, but with two extra rows and one semi autonomous piece, the Red Fool.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Ben Reiniger wrote on Wed, Jan 29, 2020 05:08 PM EST:Aha, while the Editor's "edit contents" link has appended the uniqid to bypass cache issues, the Author's "edit the contents" link does not. While I would prefer to have a better solution to cache issues, maybe for now we should also add a uniqid to the Author links.
If I get some time tonight, I'll redo my edits to this page. (I see the board is back already, at least.)
Greg Strong wrote on Tue, Jan 28, 2020 05:29 PM EST:And my edit, adding the board graphic is now gone as well, for the second time.
Ben Reiniger wrote on Tue, Jan 28, 2020 03:05 PM EST:Erm, now my edit is gone. Did you happen to try to further edit, and get the cached editor fields pulled up?
Safe squares for the Fool to move to are either empty or undefended. I wrote a complete update and rewrite of this page, but my changes were not saved. Thank you for editing it. A draw game will only occur when the Fool actually delivers the check.
Ben Reiniger wrote on Tue, Jan 28, 2020 02:27 PM EST:@Amy, I've reduced the repetition of material in each section, and some other light editing. Please check that it reads alright to you.
Does the RF-checkmate mean any checkmate in which the RF takes some part, or must the RF be delivering check? What about when the RF "contributes" but is redundant (other pieces cover its attack squares)? (Maybe these questions don't actually matter, given the RF's restrictions; I haven't thought about any specific position yet.)
You say the RF prioritizes "safe" squares, but from the subsequent discussion it sounds like perhaps you meant "empty"?
Metamachy. Large game with a variety of regular fairy pieces.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]📝H. G. Muller wrote on Fri, Jan 24, 2020 10:46 AM EST:@Kevin: Human play is far from perfect, even for GMs. Misconceptions about piece values is just one of the contributions to imperfection. So, yes, GMs can have opinions, and the can afford these opinions to be wrong and still be at the top, because their competitors have their flaws too.
If the value of pieces depended on the general level of play, they would be meaningless concepts. We don't teach beginning chessplayers other piece values as those that GMs are using. Only if a player has a misconception applying to a specific piece, such as that knights are best moved to the board corners and should stay there, it can affect the value this piece has for them.
It's nice to hear different opinions. Perhaps I am somewhat biased due to the demolition work my Gryphon has done in the tournament game.
Greg Strong wrote on Thu, Jan 23, 2020 09:23 PM EST:I also do not subscribe to formula. I've been here long enough to watch at least a half-dozen well-thought-out systems be disproven. The killer is that, not only has it not worked for pieces (e.g., the Archbishop is significantly stronger than anticipated), but also because it depends on the entire army (e.g., the individual pieces of the Nutty Knights aren't that strong, but together, they are totally overpowering.)
Regarding Griffon vs. Queen. I am firmly in the camp that the Queen is better. The case has been made that the larger board favors the Griffon - which is true to a point - but the difference is microscopic. The Griffon suffers more in the corner or the edge, especially if blocked at the key points. The larger the board, the fewer squares are edges/corners. But the difference is small and the Queen and Griffon are active, attacking pieces that aren't likely to be there anyway. Far more important is the fact that, while the Griffon has 8 rays, they emerge from 4 choke points where they can be blocked. This limits mobility measurably. Additionally, the Queen can slide along all 8 rays while continuing to attack the ray. The Griffon cannot do this at all. If it attacks even files, and makes a file-move, it now attacks odd files. Same with ranks. The result is that the Queen can triangulate - if it wants to attack a square, and is threatened and forced to move, it has several options of other squares to relocate to while still attacking the desired square. The Griffon has a much harder time with this - for squares outside short range there is no option at all. Also, it has problems with asymmetry. One Griffon can attack another and the other may not be able to attack back because they follow different paths. These sorts of anomolies do weaken peaces to some extent. FInally, a Queen cannot be attacked by a King because it attacks all adjacent squares. The Griffon can be approached.
All that said, the Griffon has some neat capabilities. In particular, in the endgame, the ability to attack two files (or ranks) and trap the king between them is pretty good. A Griffon plus a Rook is deadly. Get the King betwen the Griffon's forks and then move the rook in between and that is checkmate, even if the King is in the middle of the board! (When is the King ever checkmated in the middle of the board?) So maybe, just maybe, a Griffon can be better in the very endgame, but I'm not even sure that is clear. (King + Queen vs. King is much easier to carry out than King + Griffon vs. King, which is kinda tricky although still possible.)
I don't know the difference in value - a pawn sounds like a good starting point - but there is no doubt I will trade a Griffon for a Queen in even trade.
By coincidence or not, H.G., that's about 87% of a queen (on 8x8, at least) which is in line with the 85% ratio offered by the old ZoG article (for 8x8), as well as the 88% (if I read right) offered up by the Betza article. I didn't check everything he's ever written so as to see if Betza thought the ratio applied on all board sizes, though. Last night my own quick sketchy re-calculations came up with a 90% ratio for on 12x12 (at least), not too different, but I would be less confident if not comparing it to ZoG and Betza's percentage figures.
One thing calculations based on theory do have the advantage of is offering up something quick, if computer analysis has yet to be done due to awkwardness of board size, for example. Players can always take calculated (or even computer-generated) piece values with a grain of salt, and/or treat them as ballpark figures, everyone should understand that, at least for CVs that aren't much explored. There is also the question of exact board size/shape being tested, exact armies used in a starting setup being tested (and the exact squares the pieces start on, as Chess960 might even show). Not only that, but the strength of an engine being used for testing, IMHO.
Dax00 didn't so far offer up a way to numerically estimate the value of a piece like the Gryphon (on 8x8, or 12x12), but rather something that looked like opinion to me. That's fine, if a number can then be offered up as at least a guestimate based on it (unless one prefers to keep it secret). Aurelian has done a kind of calculation already, based on some sort of premise(s), so it seems for 12x12 he agrees with the conclusion that it's better than a queen for that board size - what his exact number for it could be, I don't know.
P.S.: Even the best human chess players still cannot agree on even the exact values chess pieces should have, computers be damned. The current world chess champion values a bishop slightly more than a knight on average, as is tradition for a long time. I may be an exception, in that I think a knight is almost fully equal to a B - and in my days as a young man I reached 2400 USCF chess rating, and nearly 2300 FIDE (later 2400 Canadian rating, in my early 50s). Some would say I'm still pretty weak, since I blunder badly now and then. :)
📝H. G. Muller wrote on Thu, Jan 23, 2020 12:32 PM EST:@Dax00: I agree completely that calculatory methods for piece values are usually no good. They qualfy as 'fact-free science'. The known values of the six orthodox pieces can be reproduced by infinitely many numerological recipes, which can be designed to give arbitrary values for any fairy piece.
I therefore do always determine piece values in an empirical way, by having a computer program play games in which the pieces are pitted against a combination of pieces of known value, and measure their performance. Through such measurements the Gryphon turned out to be worth about 8.3 on 8x8 (IIRC), on a scale where Q=9.5.
In the early versions of apothecary chess I have done these caculations. A Griffin is a pawn weaker than the quenn on a 10x10.About the same results I got for a marshall. But increased board helps the griffin! Dax is correct!
It seems upon re-checking, I made an error in my calculations for the Eagle's value, then reinforced that by reading Betza's article the wrong way. For now I'll go back and use a value based on the old ZoG article's exact ratio that's found between a gryphon (Eagle, here) and a queen, if only for the sake of providing a quick and dirty numerical estimate, even though it may prove to be too low later on (with much experience). The value of bent riders is something I hadn't tried to calculate on my own before.
P.S.: If I am now reading the Betza article right, he values a gryphon (i.e. Eagle) as worth 88% of a queen, which is almost exactly the value that the old ZoG article implies it has.
Where the Queen provides distributed pressure, the Gryphon provides concentrated pressure. Against reasonable play, where you expect your opponent to try to make his pieces work together (reasonable to assume pieces are relatively close together), I assert that the Gryphon is a better piece for pressuring the opponent overall. Even when kicked away, it can often still maintain distant defense. And the forking potential is massive.
I was never one to subscribe to a calculatory method of evaluating piece values, rather in favor of practical analysis through actual play.
Even if I were to concede that a Gryphon is about a pawn less in worth than a Queen on an 8×8 board (which I do not), it makes sense that the Gryphon's initial diagonal move would mitigate its strength more so on the smaller board than on the 12×12 board of Metamachy, so for this game its value should be at least comparable if not superior.
Before finalizing my own tentative estimate for the value of the Eagle (quite a bit less than a queen), I read Ralph Betza's article on Bent Riders, in the Piece Articles section of this website. If I understood his writings right, I'd already arrived at a similar value to what his would be for the Gryphon (what is called the Eagle in this game), even though I used a sketchier form of calculation. However, Betza worked out his theories for piece values before people began to try to estimate fairy piece values with the aid of computers.
P.S.: In the Piece Articles section, too, the Article 'Who is Who on Eight by Eight' puts ZoG's value for a Gryphon only about a chess pawn's worth less than a queen, so quite a difference in value, although those are old ZoG values that need to be taken with a grain of salt in many cases.
100 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.
I don't usually like games with different armies, but this is an exception. You've put a lot of thought into making a game whose different armies are not unevenly matched. For sure, the Spartan side lacks a Queen and its army appears to be slightly less powerful, but that is compensated for by the presence of two kings, both of which must be checkmated/captured.