Game Reviews (and other rated comments on Game pages)
Great idea. I have always loved Fischerrandom Chess, but I really don't like the way it gives players no control over where their pieces start. I also consider Fischer's castling rule to be cludgy and it's hard to believe that a man of his genius came up with that. Your project fixes those shortcomings.
One tweak I'd make if it were up to me is to require both players to enter ALL their pieces before making any other moves. White would enter a piece, followed by black, and they'd take it in turns to enter pieces, one at a time, until the first and eighth ranks were full. Of course, Bishops must be required to be on different coloured squares.
Thank you very much. I have been able to upload all diagrams and the process was very lean.
Yesterday, it was my mistake for the size limit. Instead of uploading the jpg diagrams I have made for my own website, I uploaded instead the source images coming from the board painting tool, which are much heavier. Thank you for your help.
Pieces are never attacking friendly pieces or I miss something
That is the answer to my question. So if a virgin King is on h1, a black Bishop on h2, and a black Knight on g4, the King can move to h3. If his own Bishop was on h2 instead, he could not.
Some people would say pieces can attack the square a friendly piece is on. They obviously cannot capture it, but that doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as being attacked. E.g. when my King stands next to an enemy Pawn that is protected, does he attack that Pawn?
Personally this rule strikes me as quite illogical; to pass through a square it should be empty, and if you don't pass through it but jump over it, you shouldn't have to worry if you are attacked there. And I wonder how much this rule actually affects the game; it seems very hard to attack any squares next to the enemy King before he moves away to safety, as he starts buried behind 2 or 3 ranks of pieces. Especially if he can jump.
In general I like your variants a lot, because you do not only feature super-strong pieces (much stronger that Rook), but also Knight-class pieces. Most variants suffer from an over-abudance of Queen-class pieces. The middle of the strength spectrum is still a bit under-populated, though: almost none of the pieces is close to a Rook in value.
I think this game is OK, but I do not care for the promotion rules. The game does not have a queen, so promotion to queen would already be the strongest piece. The amazon seems excessive and most games that feature that piece are not very good IMO. The amazon attacks in 16 directions while the next strongest piece - the rook - only attacks four.
Thanks a lot. I didn't know about Lioness, very good.
Very good information! What is not clear for me at the moment if that Asakura shogi is a reconstruction of a possible step in the evolution of shogi, or if that form of game is really asserted and supported by historical proofs. I may ask a specialist that I know. Thank you again.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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
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.
I have to comment it for having simple yet original rules, promising a good entertainment, perhaps even well commercially-sold.
Kevin!...
About game courier just ask me and I'l' do it. It is fine for me!...
I'll also teach you how!...
Yes that type of elelphant it is the lieutenenat of spartan chess. Or "the captain" I'm not sure. I like it because it is closer in value to the knight. Also the non square nature of the board helps. An alternative for another game (as you used in wide chess which we have played once) is the waffle. I think a lieutenant game and a waffle game would be more interesting than the 12x8 one! That is my opinion.
About Vao: maybe Dawson gave that name because it was phonetically from the same family than Pao, and the V because this letter is made of diagonal strokes. Maybe it is not that, but it can be used as a mnemotecnic mean. Remark, it could have used Xao as well, that would have been looking more Chinese.
Below is a link to a site apparently written by the inventor of Grand Chess (and other variants); in it's coverage of that variant, it mentions that the inventor strove for 'completeness' (by adding the Archbishop and Chancellor piece types that he felt were missing from FIDE chess) - similar to the inventor of Amazon Grand Chess, I kind of feel logical completeness might mean including an amazon piece for each side (possibly the inventor of Grand Chess rejected this simply due to having an odd number of pieces in each army as a result). Note in my 10x10 variant Sac Chess, which has had a lot of testing, having 2 amazons per side (though on a crowded board initially) doesn't seem to hurt the quality of the play in games much at all.
Anyway, for a variant idea I'm still considering, I came up with an alternative setup to that of Amazon Grand Chess (I thought reverse symmetry for the setup can be used, to make the odd number of pieces per side seem less asymmetrical, IMO). On a seperate website from the one below I saw some posters wishing that Grand Chess used normal promotion rules, as in chess (so that the board's edge is made use of for one thing), and also that it allowed a king to leap up to 3 squares once per game, to make up for the absence of castling, so I'm considering these as possible refinements, too. I'll also mention that one thing I don't quite like about the Amazon Grand Chess setup is that the amazon and queen of each side are doubled on a file (albeit behind a pawn) before play even begins... Now, here's the link I mentioned:
http://www.mindsports.nl/index.php/how-i-invented-games-and-why-not/chess-variants-are-easy
[edit: Here's a link to a discussion I alluded to, about how Grand Chess might be improved:]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk%3AGrand_chess
[edit2: Here's a diagram of a CV idea of mine that might be called Grandiose Chess, which I'll study at leisure (pawns would promote on last rank to any piece type in the setup, except for a king, and an unmoved king that's not in check can leap up to three squares away to an unoccupied square on the first or second rank that's not under attack, regardless of any pieces or enemy attacks that may be in between):][edit3: I'm not liking this so much just now - perhaps it's a worse version of Grand Chess, or even of my own Sac Chess:]
I see that a new study of historical sources on Tori Shogi has been published: https://www.amazon.co.jp/禽将棋についての研究-禽将棋の背景と系統的位置づけ-MyISBN-デザインエッグ社-松本尚也/dp/4815014205/ref=sr_1_1?__mk_ja_JP=カタカナ&keywords=禽将棋&qid=1575339500&sr=8-1
I wonder if any Japanese have read the book and can comment on what new discoveries this book reveals.
A very interesting game. And you have the interactive diagram using our signature Alfaerie pieces and colors! I love it :)
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 think it's a fusion between Wildbeast and Xhess not XChess. XChess is a variation with an hourglass.
Chris
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.
Just played this very interesting game. A single Knight won the game when White was at a larrge disadvantage being down a bishop and a rook.
(note b2=P means b2 is flipped and a Pawn is revealed. Pawns are desginated P and there is no short-form notation)
1. c2=P c7=C
2. Pe2-e3 ....
Otherwise Cc7xc1 #
2. ... Cc7xc1 (xB)
3. Ke1-e2 Cc1xa1 (xP)
4. g2=N b7=B
5. Ng2-f4 Bb7xh1 (xR)
6. Nf4-e6
After a careless capture at h1, which yielded a rook advantage (rook is the strongest unit on board at the start), Black resigns at this point, since Nxg7 or Nc7 are both checkmates and no possible move could defend both squares. The King could not move as its only revealed piece, the e7 pawn, is blocked by the white Knight. Other unrevealed p
The page for this game was very old and the content wasn't really appropriate as a formal description of this historic game, so I have completely rewritten it. The original version can still be found here.
26 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.
I have 2 questions about the brouhaha squares:
1) What is the advantage of allowing a capture on a brouhaha square? Spontaneously, I find this strange: I understood that such a square hosts a piece until it is activated and enter into play, then the square disapears. Then, this square is not part of the play area really. So, I wouldn't have allowed a capture on it at all. Maybe there is something I don't see.
2) Why this name of "brouhaha" square? At least in French a brouhaha is a surrounding noise. Those squares are more like a fog, brouillard in French. Brouhaha/brouillard, is there a linguistic confusion there?