💡📝Kevin Pacey wrote on Sat, Jan 23, 2016 04:01 AM UTC:
In my submission I gave links from my Chess Federation of Canada website blog, including my entry there that covered Sac Chess in detail. Included in that entry was my proposal for two slight spinoff variants of Sac Chess to accomodate anyone who dislikes Amazons being clearly more powerful than a Queen. One spinoff variant ("Cash Chess") had two different piece compound pieces replacing each of the 2 Amazons in both camps. These were to be B+N+K ("Freemason") and R+N+K ("Ship") compounds, each a compound piece of my own invention (afaik).
I wasn't keen on this spinoff variant myself, since there would be less near-symmetry in each camp, and there would be more piece types to remember in total. The other spinoff variant ("Royal Sac Chess") would let Queens have a small distinction over Amazons on at least some occasions. In this spinoff variant, in the event of stalemate or a three-fold repetition of moves (perpetual check being a case of such), if one side had more queens on the board than his opponent then he would win the game, else it would be a draw in the event of an equal number of queens.
I kind of liked this spinoff variant, as perhaps an important way to justify having Queens on the board alongside Amazons (which are clearly superior in their relative value AND movement capabilities on an empty board). On the other hand, it's using a rather artificial rule change that would drastically affect some games' final results.
In the end, I decided that the reasons you gave for liking having a Queen, besides Amazons, were adequate enough, such as keeping a quaint royal tradition going in spite of my wanting to include many compound pieces in Sac Chess, including Amazons. The Amazon seems to get a bad rap because it is so powerful (it can mate a King on an empty board with no assistance, for instance). At least having a Queen on the board as a possible threat to trade itself for an Amazon gives a player with an Amazon one more thing to watch out for.
In my submission I gave links from my Chess Federation of Canada website blog, including my entry there that covered Sac Chess in detail. Included in that entry was my proposal for two slight spinoff variants of Sac Chess to accomodate anyone who dislikes Amazons being clearly more powerful than a Queen. One spinoff variant ("Cash Chess") had two different piece compound pieces replacing each of the 2 Amazons in both camps. These were to be B+N+K ("Freemason") and R+N+K ("Ship") compounds, each a compound piece of my own invention (afaik). I wasn't keen on this spinoff variant myself, since there would be less near-symmetry in each camp, and there would be more piece types to remember in total. The other spinoff variant ("Royal Sac Chess") would let Queens have a small distinction over Amazons on at least some occasions. In this spinoff variant, in the event of stalemate or a three-fold repetition of moves (perpetual check being a case of such), if one side had more queens on the board than his opponent then he would win the game, else it would be a draw in the event of an equal number of queens. I kind of liked this spinoff variant, as perhaps an important way to justify having Queens on the board alongside Amazons (which are clearly superior in their relative value AND movement capabilities on an empty board). On the other hand, it's using a rather artificial rule change that would drastically affect some games' final results. In the end, I decided that the reasons you gave for liking having a Queen, besides Amazons, were adequate enough, such as keeping a quaint royal tradition going in spite of my wanting to include many compound pieces in Sac Chess, including Amazons. The Amazon seems to get a bad rap because it is so powerful (it can mate a King on an empty board with no assistance, for instance). At least having a Queen on the board as a possible threat to trade itself for an Amazon gives a player with an Amazon one more thing to watch out for.