Ratings & Comments

Note that the Wildebeest does not have mating potential in your game. (Unlike in Wildebeest Chess, where stalemate also is a win.)

Also note that you do not consistently use the same spelling for the name of the piece, and that the promotion rule as described in the article (twice!) says indeed something entirely different from what Greg wrote. And, to really nitpick, that "all other cases" to that where you do not have a Queen is just the single case where you do have one.

Hi, it's always good to hear criticism. And i think you've got it right.

Personally i give you the pieces i much like when playing Musketeer Chess: Hawk, Unicorn +++ and my favorite is the Archbishop combining Bishop and Knight abilities. I much like sacrificing my Queen for an Archbishop !!

Musketeer Chess idea was to get rid of the big amount of draws and also opening learning (long theoretical lines). The idea is also to give black a more important role by deciding the final combination of pieces, adapting his strategy to white's choice which will lower for sure the importance of white's advantage as the side who begins the game; But this needs for sure a precise play.

You pointed out the fact that the Board is overcrowded. Of course it becomes a problem if you choose to gate you r pieces whithout a prior clear strategy and this will hamper you from exploiting the huge potential of the new pieces.

The newly added pieces are strong and they bring so much excitment and tactics from the first move ! So the slightest lack of attention can be punished (more spectacular wins) but also if you lower your attention even with a huge material advantage on the board, your opponent can surprise you and mate you using the newest pieces whom some can mate alone.

Yes, Musketeer Chess is not a perfect game, but Classic Chess became mostly a game of "knowledge" and opening learning and is for sure less attractive for average kids and players that want to improve their level but are frustrated by this learning.

Elite tournaments are less spectacular and games most usually finish with draws.

I would also like clarification about the promotion rules. The way I interpreted the rule as you wrote it, promotion to queen would be mandatory if you didn't have one, otherwise mandatory promotion to wildebeest. Which bothered me, because in my current game with Greg Strong, in one quite possible line, I would prefer wildebeest to queen. Underpromotion is a great mechanic, so it would be nice to be able to promote to lesser pieces if desired.

OK. Thanks!

Thanks for the clarification.

I was able to re-associate the two existing game logs with your new Wildebeast9 preset and delete the old one.

Question -

This says "for one of the bishops of the player, the first move made with this bishop must be [a conversion]".  But what if a player has a bishop captured before either has moved?  The wording makes it sound like the other bishop would still be required to convert, but my guess is that is not what was intended.  I would think that if a bishop is captured before either has moved, the other one would be able to convert but would not be required to convert.  Carlos, can you please clarify?

Thanks!

Greg:  Done.  The game is now Wildebeast9.   Can you delete/erase Wildebeast_9?   The one with the underscore?

Sac Chess still seems to be holding up well in practical testing on Game Courier, I'm happy to see.

A while back I toyed with the idea of making novel spinoff variant(s) that included the use of N+Guard+Bishop (technically NWB) compound pieces (I've called them Freemasons) and also what I've called Ships, that is N+Guard+Rook (technically NFR) compound pieces (using either an 8x10 or 12x12 board). I had, subsequent to inventing Sac Chess, had the feeling these two triple compound pieces perhaps ought to have been included in a Sac Chess-like game, somehow, as they perhaps logically complete the set of thematic compound pieces added to the standard FIDE piece types. On the other hand, there seems to be no precedent for the use of these triple compound piece types in previously fairly-widely played CVs, e.g. shogi includes the promoted B & R types, at least, while I recall Amazons had been fairly popular, in a variant of chess played in Russia long(?) ago - even centaurs have been employed (Courier-Spiel). So, I don't feel the urge to use the Freemason and Ship compounds as strongly as I once did, as I now see Sac Chess clearly uses the 'classic' compound pieces, as Carlos once put it.

A side issue arising from all this that occured to me is: what values should the Freemason and Ship piece types have? If we note that computer studies place Archbishops (let alone Chancellors) very close to a Q in value, and also place Amazon=Q+N in value (only), at least on 8x8, there doesn't seem much room to put Freemasons and Ships between Archbishops (or Chancellors) and Amazons on a numerical value scale, one might guess (at first thought anyway). I'm not sure what I'd speculate any future computer studies might (approximately) give for the values of Freemasons or Ships, but my own tentative valuation of an Amazon (as =Q+N+P) gives more room to fit Freemasons and Ships on a values scale (e.g. for armies on 8x8 or 10x10), at least. [edit: Fwiw, for 10x10 my own tentative estimates place Chancellor=N+R+P=3+5.5+1=9.5; Amazon=Q+N+P=10+3+1=14 and Ship=(N+F+P)+R+P=(3+0.75+1)+5.5+1=11.25, for example; if I only changed the value of an Amazon, to be equal to Q+N=10+3=13, then its value would seemingly be too close to that of a Ship's.]

I am currently playing a game of Odin's Rune Chess, and I really like it, as much the rules and gameplay, as the runic theme. The Forest Ox is a terrific piece, maybe too powerful... I like the rather strong Pawns. I generally appreciate modern variants that use non-conventional Pawns, it effectively renews the dynamics of a chess game. And their initial colorboundness isn't a default at all, for me.

I was wondering if Pawn promotion could be integrated in this game - even if it is not necessary since Pawns can go back and the need for new material is less crucial, since the vulnerabiliy of the Kings without moving possibilities makes situations of insufficent material less likely. Promotion possibilities should be limited, since Pawns can reach the last rank in only four moves; for example, they could only promote to previously captured pieces of his own colour; or there could be limitations to the maximum number of pieces of each type present on the board (4 Valkyries, and 4 Forest Oxen, for example - which is already a lot). One can also think of the opportunity to permit the promotion to King (here too, the maximum number must be limited or promotion be only to previously captured Kings). But the game plays already well, I don't think it needs a promotion rule. I was just wondering how promotion could affect the gameplay, and if it could be interessant as a variant.

Edit: my comment about the possibility of promotion wasn't very pertinent. Promotion doesn't make much sense in this game.

New fairness-based rule to the Randomized version of this game: in the opening setup, the sentry must reside on the c, d, e, or f files.

Thanks, Fergus!

I added some illustration to better visualize the terrain and initial setup. Next time I'm putting down images of the units, structure and the strategic maps. 

Many thanks for the fix Erik, it is much appreciated. I was not aware of the issue. Regards, Gary