Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

I also submitted a variant (Chess on an Infinite Plane using classical chess pieces) on 2/16, but haven't seen or heard anything yet.

I'm interested in seeing yours:)

{Note: I'm reposting a test diagram post, since I did considerable editing to the earlier post it was in (besides bringing it back to the top of the Comments section for anyone interested).}

I was curious whether the Diagram Designer (or Game Courier) would show a diagram for a 4D Hexagonal variant that would have thirty-seven hex-shaped 2D boards of 37 hexes each, in a way that give reasonable sized hexes (plus any pieces on them) as seen on my laptop screen. The answer seems to be no; I'll post a diagram of the first step one would take in making such a diagram as a final step. The first step involves making a (7x7+6)x (7x7+6) = 55x55 cell vertical hexagonal diagram (the next step would involve cutting thirty-seven 2D hexagonal boards (of 37 cells) out by kind of 'deleting' many cells using the FEN code, in order to make a hexagonal shaped 4D board). Here's the diagram of the first step (I included a 3 colour checkering pattern plus some pieces, to liven the image a bit); I tried scale=300 (about the max. this would produce such a diagram for of these dimensions), and it didn't really help using [ctrl +] a few times, i.e. for enlarging the print on my screen):

[edit: That's strange. When I post the diagram in a comment, the individual hexes and pieces are now reasonably visible. Regardless, one will have to scroll up and down the screen to view the whole image, unless one uses [ctrl -] several times to reduce it, but then one can't see individual cells/pieces clearly. With many cells cut out, so as to make a final diagram of the 4D board, one would still need to do [ctrl -] at least four times to view the diagram all on one screen (mine anyway), but then the individual cells/pieces would still look a bit too small to be really acceptable. P.S.: In a later edit, I changed the diagram's scale to just 23, which would be the largest size able to show on my laptop screen a final 4D diagram (with many cells deleted) without needing to scroll down my screen. Looking at the diagram now, the cells/pieces (not to mention the notation for the board's cells) look almost too small to be really acceptable, but perhaps this is a borderline case?]

Fwiw, here's a page for a CVP entry that seems to use hexes of about the same size, though somehow the pieces (at least when represented by individual letters) seem easier to see:

Antarctic Chess

The simple checkering pattern I used for the 3 colours was 201.012.120. using the default colours for the Diagram Designer. If you wish to experiment, you can click on 'Edit' for a Preset someone made (e.g. for playing Glinski's Hexagonal Chess) and look at the checkering pattern numbering scheme that they used, if nothing else. Note that sometimes, if your desired checkering pattern for a board diagram is in any way not so regular, it seems you are forced to give a checkering pattern colour number for each and every individual square (or cell) of your entire diagram, i.e. you'll need to give a large checkering pattern for that diagram, which goes rank by rank, for all ranks on your diagram. I reached this conclusion on my own, but later on seeing how other people (even CVP editors) used patterns to checker, say, large 4D diagrams with square cells, confirmed my conclusion. Unless you enjoy doing so as a labour of love, it may be best to avoid being unnecessarily ambitious with one's checkering pattern.

The (final) 4D (4 dimensional) diagram would be made partly by 'cutting out' hexes from the diagram, by using the FEN code of the Diagram Designer properly (it would take some calculating and time to type it all in; use a - for a blank, as a way to cut out a cell, rather than showing a cell on the board). The 4D diagram I had in mind would be 37 two dimensional boards with hexagonal cells, the 2D boards each hex-shaped themselves (4 hexes to each of six sides, with a peak width of 7 hexes). The 4D board's 37 2D boards would in turn be arranged in a hex-shaped way, with 4 2D boards to each of six sides, with a peak width of 7 hexes. That also gives the 4D diagram Rows and Columns (besides the ranks and files of the 2D boards). Assuming I wanted to at some point go even this far with such work, I'd finish the task by entering a much more complex checkering pattern (time consuming), then change the FEN code more by in effect adding any pieces I wanted onto the board's diagram at the appropriate 4D board cell positions (not so time consuming, perhaps).

To get a yet clearer idea of a 4D hexagonal diagram, you might once again check my much earlier 4D diagram that had 19 two dimensional hex-shaped boards with hexagonal cells. For that diagram I used more colours, more pieces and more complex checkering. You can click on "all messages" for this Diagram Testing Thread to save some time in digging back.

I've edited my previous post somewhat.

Thanks Kevin, It looks like you've made many variations of hexagonal-based board shapes. They are very interesting. That's also a good tip to use the "-" to block out squares, to make even more interesting board patterns. I've thought of doing that in an initial diagram, to add "walls" or other obstructions in a chessboard, but have not done so yet.

As for experimenting with large diagrams, I took a previous image and "zoomed-out" to a 50x50 grid. This represents a previous game set-up (it is not new), but it is an expanded view which can be used in the event pieces "spread out" during play.

Good work on your diagrams and, thanks for all the tips you've been sharing:)

[edit: I changed the piece set I used in my last-posted diagram to 'abstract' (from 'magnetic'); the pieces now seem a wee bit more distinguishable, to my imperfect eyesight anyway.]

It seems the few CVP editors that there are (Fergus being the chief one, Joe Joyce possibly being the only other one that's at all active currently) are often busy with other things. So, it may even take, say, up to a few weeks for them to review a submission, and convert it to a publicly viewable webpage on CVP, if they like it. If not, they can leave a comment under an 'unreviewed' submission's comment thread (i.e. not yet publicly viewable), requesting any changes they might wish you to make before they accept the submission as publishable - so check your submission for any comments now and then under "Your unreviewed submissions" (you get to that by pointing your mouse at your name in the main menu on the top of a given CVP page). Note that as someone pointed out a while ago, Fergus may be on vacation, so you might have to be extra patient.

I'm posting a diagram of an idea I have for a variant so that I can examine it at leisure. I was toying with the idea of inventing a chess-like variant with some new piece types with old-fashioned names that really suited such medieval battles, but after an initial look at the effect of the new piece types I came up with, I'm now inclined to a more modern name for such a variant if I eventually submit such. Maybe 'Gamma Chess' ('X-Ray Chess' somehow doesn't seem as good), or on second thought possibly Archer Chess, if that name isn't already taken either.

In the diagram below, the Boat piece type has the powers of a Cannon and a Guard. The Archer piece type has the powers of a Vao and a Guard. I'd estimate the value of a Boat as about 8 [edit: this should be approx. 6.25 instead; see my next post in this thread], while putting an Archer at about 6 Pawns, though the latter might well be way more dangerous initially in a typical game. I'm thinking the game would be played like Capablanca Chess in other respects as far as the rules go: [edit: I've switched the positions of the new pieces and the B's in the setup, and redefined the powers of the T(Boat) and A(Archer) piece types to be alfil+guard and dabbaba+guard respectively (each worth about 6.5 I think); see the next 2 of my posts ahead in this thread for some explanation - perhaps Gamma Chess will now be the choice of name if this game ever flys]

The idea has merit. What I like mostly is that both both and archer are major pieces :)! I'm totally unsure abut the piece values. Anyway what is sure is the the widening of the board makes the knight value bishop value ration smaller.  The main purpose of hoppers is to exchange them for stronger pieces sonner rathen than later when they run out of targets to capture or al least harass.  Although gaining an ease of developement the boat has only once such targe in your view, the queen :)! For that my proposal would be to keep in this capablanca-esc setup the archbishop and marshall on I and B files and move the knights on d2 and e2. That for ease of developement. Knights first routine :)! Then add four pawns on c3,d3,e3,f3. Of course black is mirrored. That would give the hopper compounds more targets to at least harass. The piece desity would be a bit larger than ortodox chess at 11/20 but it's not that bad as hoppers are aided by that and anyway the two extra pieces are pawns. 3rd files pawns don't get double step. Anywat Good luck with your designing, I hope this is usefull :)!

On second thought, giving my previous comment, I think is better to place the boat and archer on b and i files or reversed and the archbishop and marshall on c and f files as weaker pieces should be easier to develop :)!

Hi Aurelian

After sleeping on it, I think my idea for a variant doesn't quite work. The Boat (if not the Archer) is a clear case of being too powerful for the board size, as it seems one might often lift a Boat to the third rank and then harass a castled enemy K with checks perpetually, at the least. After my initial post I did something I ought to have done first: I looked up Cannon in Piececlopedia, and saw upon inspection that all of the many games that use it all have huge boards, such as Eurasian Chess. That's apparently so that an enemy K (or other piece) has plenty of room to often hide from a Cannon. Still, my Boat and Archer piece types might be interesting concepts. Also, I could try to salvage the game by making them weaker pieces somehow, without going back to Capablanca Chess. A catch may be that I desired no unprotected pawns in the setup, yet wanted two different piece types added in.

In Capablanca Chess I put a K's fighting value at 3.2 by a formula I worked out once. In Eurasian Chess (10x10) I put a Cannon at 3.75 (about what Lau values it at in Chinese Chess) [edit: I'd suppose a Cannon should be 2 instead for an 8 rank game with a more normal king than in Eurasian Chess, based on discussion in my next post in this thread] and a Vao at 1.75. To get the values for a Boat and an Archer, it seemed reasonable to use my values for a Cannon and a Vao in Eurasian Chess, add each seperately to the fighting value of a K in Capa Chess, then add a pawn's value seperately to each (like Q=R+B+P in Chess). Thus T(Boat)=3.75+3.2+1 is approx. 8 [edit: this should be T=2+3.2+1, or approx. 6.25, instead] and A=1.75+3.2+1 is approx. 6, getting rid of an uglier fraction than 0.25 in each case. For Capablanca Chess I previously mentioned somewhere on this website that I put N=3.5 approx., B=3.75, R=5.5 and Q=10.25. I've also given values for such pieces on 9x8, 8x8 and 10x10, always keeping R=5.5. Note that I value a N as about 3.5 on a 10x8 or 9x8 board than 8x8 since it has more near-central squares to enjoy, but also IMHO the value of a N goes down on a 10x10 board compared to 8x8 since it takes it so long to cross from any side of such a huge board to the opposite side. A N in Eurasian Chess would be an exception to this overall devaluation in my eyes, as, due to the properties of the kings, a N works well with any second piece in basic mate endgames in that variant. A Cannon also works well in this respect, so I put it around a N in value in that variant.

Thanks for the information, and I regret your concept has not got through :(!

Note that the Cannon is a quite weak piece. In Xiangqi it is only a bit stronger than the Horse even in the opening phase, while a Horse is only worth half a FIDE Knight (~1.6 Pawn) because of its blockability. So I would put the Cannon at 2.4 Pawns at most, and on 8-rank boards 2 Pawns would probably already be optimistic.

For what it's worth, H.T. Lau's book on Chinese Chess gives R=9, CA=4.5, N=4, P(after crossing river)=M=CO=2 and P(before crossing river)=1. Quite a difference in valuation for both the N and the CA from yours, H.G., though it's given in the context of this game by itself, with no mention of comparing it to e.g. chess piece types. The high value for a R gives me a clue I may have overvalued the Cannon in Eurasian Chess due to not considering this last point. Taking it into account, I'd be inclined at first to put the value of a Cannon at 2.75 pawns in Eurasian Chess, as I put a R at 5.5 there, except that with the properties of a king in that variant, a Cannon does well in an endgame with any piece (even the lowly Vao) as far as basic mates goes. The latter is the same story as it is for a N. A knight's main disadvantage is its short range, especially on the huge 10x10 board, while the C's main disadvantage is that it captures purely by hopping. I'd suppose these factors roughly balance, and thus I'd adjust my initial valuation of a Cannon here to come up with my actual tentative estimate of C=N(=3.75), in the case of Eurasian Chess. For variants with normal chess kings, and 8 ranks, such as the original version of my variant idea Gamma Chess, I'd now go with your optimistic case estimate of Cannon=2, and recalculate my estimated value of a Cannon+Guard compound piece from there [edit: I've done this with edits to my previous two posts in this thread]. The Lau book was first released way back in 1985, if that comes into consideration.

For anyone still interested, I'm thinking I might now be able to salvage something from my latest test diagram (see my second last post in this thread, where I altered the setup slightly, by editing), if I redefine the Boat and Archer piece types as follows: the new Boat type would have the powers of an alfil (leaps 2 diagonally) and a guard, while the new Archer type would have the powers of a dabbaba (leaps 2 orthogonally) and a guard. Partly because neither would be colour-bound, I'd estimate they'd both be worth about 6.5 pawns on average. I'm not sure what name I'd give this new version of this variant idea if I decide to submit it, but Gamma Chess would be as good as any a placeholder unless I think of something better. This was my third version of the variant, perhaps somewhat justifying the name (Gamma is the third letter of the Greek alphabet).

I would assume that the higher rook value is do too considerring an weaker pawn as baseline. Also consider that the chinesse king is even easier to checkmate by rook and by cannon.

For what it's worth, H.T. Lau's book on Chinese Chess gives R=9, CA=4.5, N=4, P(after crossing river)=M=CO=2 and P(before crossing river)=1. Quite a difference in valuation for both the N and the CA from yours, H.G.

Not really. Of course you should not relate it to the Pawn value, as the XQ Pawn and the FIDE Pawn are entirely different pieces. The Rook is the same in both games, however, and you can see that Lau values the Cannon as half a Rook. That is very close to my 2.4, as western variants typically use a scale where a Rook is equated to 5 (FIDE) Pawns.

The Horse probably has a slightly higher value in XQ than in a FIDE context, because the board is more thinly populatd in XQ. You should realize that for hoppers and lame leapers the value relative to 'regular' leapers and sliders is not nearly as independent of game phase as within the latter group. In the KBNK end-game it is of no import whether the N can jump other pieces or not, and a Horse becomes as good as a Knight.

I'm not really satisfied with the latest version of my Gamma Chess variant idea, either, but tonight I've thought of three other somewhat similar variant ideas that I'll diagram for my own leisurely examination, at least. The first variant idea here I'd guess might have the best chance of being successful; for now I'll dub the idea Hannibal Chess (the name 'Elephant Chess' was taken already). Hannibal Chess is sort of a much simpler version of Courier-Spiel, with a smaller board and less piece types. The pieces all move as in standard chess, except for the Elephant piece type, which leaps 1 or 2 squares diagonally; otherwise the game would be played like Capablanca Chess (I wasn't sure if I should switch the bishops and elephants in the setup, but I kind of like the way it is at the moment [edit: after consideration I switched the B's to the c and h files, as the other way there might often be very early trades involving them] [further edit: I cannot submit this idea because apparently an almost identical form of it (i.e. except for my last-minute switch of the Bs & Es) has already been invented - see my next post in this thread {edit: as Mr. Will pointed out, the Elephants in Hannibal Chess have rather different powers than for the variant in question, so I may yet find a use for Hannibal Chess}] [additional edit: this idea for a variant might not be quite satisfying, as in a wide open endgame an E may be all but clearly inferior to a B, and also there may be relatively few good opening variations, e.g. 1.f4 f6 2.e4 e5 3. f5 might be bad for Black, unless 3...h5 is more or less playable (seemingly similar slightly suspect structures like this for Black can arise in Dutch Defence sidelines in FIDE chess)]):

My second new variant idea would be the same as for in my unedited original post on my Archer (or Gamma) Chess variant idea, except that Berolina pawns would be used instead of standard chess pawns. I'm hoping this just might make the idea feasible, but I'll have to study it more. The Archer would be the old version of the piece type, i.e. a Vao+Guard compound, while the Boat would be the old version of that piece type, i.e. Cannon+Guard, and as before the game would otherwise be played like Capablanca Chess; for now I'll dub this idea Gamma2 Chess [edit: it seems this variant idea may be infeasible as at the least a Boat might still harass a castled king by a lift to the third rank, then using another piece to take a doubled Berolina pawn on the same file as the castled king and the lifted Boat; not only that but e.g. 1.j2-i3 attacks the opposing j-pawn at once. edit2: the arguments vs. this variant idea, in this whole last sentence, seem less likely to be real concerns, in hindsight.]:

The third and final new variant idea of this post is simply Capablanca Chess played with Berolina pawns. Not sure this would be accepted if ever submitted, as countless variants could be created by simply replacing standard chess pawns in existing variants with Berolina pawns, for better or for worse. In the database I've seen just one variant with Berolina pawns so far, besides Berolina Chess itself. Anyway, for now I'd dub this last new variant idea Berolina Capablanca Chess [edit: this variant idea may be infeasible as at the least trying to develop one's Chancellor and/or kingside knight might frequently produce undesirable effects]:

Berolina Pawn:

Archer:

Ship:

The gamma chess 2 idea has crossed my mind, too :)!

Unless I'm mistaken, my independently discovered first variant idea in my last post in this thread (which I dubbed Hannibal Chess) has already been discovered (Mini Courier Chess, Orthodox Queen Variant) - see J. Carrillo's article on 10x8 variants in the Database, as I discovered by doing an advanced search today. So, scratch my thoughts on ever submitting that idea. [edit: Hannibal Chess has the Bs and Elephants switched from the Orthodox Queen Variant, though I'd consider this not substantial enough to make a fresh variant submission {further edit: Mr. Will has pointed out that the Elephants have different powers in Hannibal Chess, so I'll reconsider its merits}]

The "almost identical variant" has the elephants move differently from your elephants, however.

The article on Mini Courier Chess Moderno does indeed seem to have a rather different Elephant defined as a Courier Elephant. I'll have to reconsider the merits of Hannibal Chess. Thank you, Nicolino! I've gone back and edited my relevant posts to note this.

At the moment I'm considering a piece type suggested to me by H.G., namely the Ferz-Threeleaper, for a possible 10x8 board variant (I had happened to think of this piece recently, by less systematic thought than H.G.'s, but I didn't give the piece type serious consideration as yet).

I saw on Diagram Designer a piece that looked like it might be a threeleaper figurine. I clicked on 'Properties' and learned it was referred to as a 'SiegeEngine'. Can anyone tell me for certain if that's another name for a Threeleaper? For what it's worth, the figurine had 3 wheels, and I noticed a similar figurine with 4 wheels was called a Fourleaper when I clicked on its properties.

A Threeleaper is also called a Trebuchet, I learned from a wiki (another wiki states that in real life a Trebuchet was a type of siege engine).

I've convinced myself by now that a SiegeEngine in Diagram Designer's nomiclature does in fact mean a ThreeLeaper. Silly me.

After going through the Alfairie: Many piece set in Diagram Designer many times, I've convinced myself it does not have a figurine to represent a Ferz-SiegeEngine. Strange. :(

I've noticed after some searching that the ferz-threeleaper compound piece type is mentioned as an example of an 'amphibian' type, near the beginning of the wiki entry on fairy chess pieces, where the piece type is called a 'frog'. Sometimes you need a sense of humour if you want to follow tradition. Anyway, at least I can use the frog figurine in the Alfairie: Many piece set if I wish to, now. :)