[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
Well, unknown poster, you've likely never suffered through a technical
committee, with everyone with <strong>strong</strong> opinions! If we
were modeling this game on, say, a computer standards committee, half the
pieces selected at random each turn would have to attack if at all
possible, and some pieces would try to attack even if it
<em>wasn't</em> physically possible, and others would be attacking squares
that were now vacant but used to contain opposing pieces.
Ah, but a Computer Standards Comittee Chess would violate the basic idea that there are two teams and pieces don't attack others in their team :) The concept of rules would be farfetched for such a thing, too :)
I have votes from seven of the nine entrants as of January 1. The four new people will be eligible to vote in the remaining 6 polls beginning in a couple of days. The new rules section will re-open for suggestions on Saturday, after the deadline for the current voting passes. The list for Pawns will close for good at that time, as the February poll will pick the Pawn. Also, two more suggestions have been posted.
The January poll is done. Email to our 14 entrants for the February poll will go out later tonight. Suggestions are open for everything except the Pawn (which is being voted on now). Zillions programmers have six months or so to figure out how to program the Cube. If it can be done. :)
Comments on the field of Pawns: Eaglet -- Straightforward yet novel. Novice -- Curious. Is it stronger or weaker than a standard pawn? Left/Right Pawns -- Possibly tough to track. Rapid Pawn -- Another straightforward and appealing entry. Checkers -- These could be quite powerful. Is this hybrid good? Militia -- Rifle-pieces always introduce questions. Nickel -- Imaginative. Piece of Eight -- Alone, not so hot...if the Tower of Hanoi wins, :)
Hmmm...no comments yet on the Knights? How will we know what to vote for?
OK, here are some comments on Knights for you (my opinions only, of
course):
<p>
<ul>
<li><u>Takeover Knights</u>.
These are interesting, if somewhat powerful. But they would certainly
give <b>Lùotuoqí</b> a distinctly different flavor.
<p>
<li>The <u>Footsore Camel</u>.
This piece is a lot harder to develop than a Knight, but attacks half again
as many squares. However, even though this piece is not colorbound or
color-changing, I'm fairly sure K + WnL vs K is a draw, although K + 2WnL
vs. K might be a win for the side with the 2WnL.
<p>
<li>The <u>Teleporter</u>.
This is too passive a piece for my tastes. If you're going to make two
pieces unable to capture, they ought to do more to make other pieces able
to capture, in my opinion.
<p>
<li>The <u>Lazy Camel</u>.
I don't like the fact this piece is colorbound, although if the Bishop is
replaced by a color-changing or color-free piece, that may be OK. But this
piece is too slow moving for my tastes, even so.
<p>
<li>The <u>Mule</u>.
Hmm. Fairly powerful, though still color-changing. This would be OK.
According to Ralph Betza, this is a Rook-strength piece (although I figure
there ought to be a slight deduction due to being color-changing and not
able to mate without help of another non-King piece).
<p>
<li><u>Knight + Lame Camel</u>.
The pure Knight + Camel is very powerful, but Knight + Lame Camel wouldn't
be as bad in the opening and midgame. In the endgame this would be worth
nearly as much as a Cardinal. Overall, I bet this piece is worth a bit
more than a Rook.
<p>
<li>The <u>Kamikazi</u>.
I'm not sure this piece can be sensibly defended against. I couldn't
recommend this piece without a fair bit of playtest.
<p>
<li><u>Terminators</u>.
This piece is like the <u>Kamikazi</u>, but worse.
<p>
<li>The <u>Samurai</u>.
This is an amusing piece, but I suspect they wouldn't stay in the game
very long. And what if both Samurai theaten the same piece? Does the
noncapturing Samurai have to seppuku? Or (less likely, but possible),
both Samurai threaten different honorable pieces?
</ul>
Takeover knights: Capture by means other than replacement makes for a powerful piece, esp. when combined with the possibility of making double captures (one by replacement, one by overtaking). This is a bit TOO big of a gun for my taste, but your mileage may vary. Footsore camel: Interesting piece. My value guestimate is somewhere between bishop and rook, with similar trends throughout the game because it is a rider of a sort. It develops about as easily as the bishop, though perhaps not as flexibly. I think it could make for some interesting opening play. Teleporter: I think this piece is broken. Since it cannot be captured, and it can teleport its own king, I can see a large class of drawn endgames where the weak side's king can perpetually evade check through teleportation. Lazy camel: I think it's about knight-valued, overall, and a neat way of getting the Omega Chess wizard onto an 8x8 board. It seems mostly defensive though -- after the bishop-pawn moves, it can make a diagonal step and attack the opposing side's center, but this seems an opening move more likely to be threatened than actually carried out. Perhaps it would be a good fit for Shatranj with Different Armies. Mule: Simple, straightforward. The knight-move makes it want to be used for a shock troop on the 8x8 board, but its value is more rookish, and it does have some blanketing power for the endgame. If it gets voted in, I'd want some other weak piece to take the knight's place, though. NnL: By the endgame, this would be almost as powerful as the full-fledged wildebeest, but in the opening, scarcely more valuable than the knight. It constantly tempts the player to trade it off, although it wants to stay in the game, because it's always getting more valuable. Another interesting entry. I think LnN would be an even more interesting piece, albeit not on this small a board. Anyone for Seperate Realms Grand Chess? Kamikaze: I think 'bomb' pieces need more limitations than this before they play well with others. Terminators: Is draw by isolation possible? They can knock out the entire center, leaving only files along the edge... Samurai: I like this one -- the centaur is ordinarily a bit overpowered (somewhere between a cardinal and a queen, in my estimation) to play well in the minor piece role (yet maybe use it instead of knightriders in tripunch chess...), but by forcing compulsory capture on it, it lays down the question of what lengths are worth going to in order to preserve it for the endgame, when it might have more freedom because it would not be so easily trapped.
Query about the S-Pawning Queen: When you say 'available space', do you mean <i>any</i> empty space on the board, or did you mean to say 'empty space adjacent to the Queen'?
<p>
Inquiring minds want to know.
From the ending part of the rule that says that the Queen can't generate a pawn if it is hedged in on all sides, I think the suggester means that the pawn is to be put next to the queen on an empty square
That's also how I would interpret the proposal...one of the eight squares adjacent to a S~pawning Queen would need to be vacant to receive the created Pawn.
Comments about the Queens (11 days to vote!) Fiend: It might work on the 12x12 board for which it was designed, but that long leap for an Immobilizer on 8x8 may have problems. Killer Immobilizer: This feels like too many rules. Tower of Hanoi: The objection to this creative piece is its use of sixteen checkers in addition to the usual pieces. But the idea has worthwhile potential anyway. Queen+Lame Camel: Does Camel Chess need a camel? If so, this is a reasonable choice. Queckers: A multi-moving Queen scares me. :) Ancestral Dragon: Knowing what a simple knight relay does, the relay power of this piece seems over the top. The S~Pawn~ing Queen: I wish the proposal had not allowed for up to 12 pawns on a side. That's a lot. I'm not sure which way to go. But I'm looking forward to the Bishops next month, which have some really cool ideas.
Just two days left for the voters to pick a new Queen! If you want in on the remaining three polls (Bishops, the second New Rule, and Rooks) then send in a suggestion for one or more of them. :) I am also starting to look at ideas for how to organize Luotuoqi II, possibly without the limitation of the standard set. Given the long history of chess on somewhat bigger boards, here's my first idea: The game is for a 10 x 10 board. First ballot selects three 'doubled' pieces (two of each in setup), and a fourth- through seventh- choice as possible extras. Second ballot selects three 'single' pieces (one of each in setup), and a fourth- and fifth choice as possible extras. Third ballot selects a pawn to be used, including oddities such as promotion and multiple step. Fourth ballot selects three extra rules, with a 100-word limit instead of 50 words. Fifth and final ballot selects a setup. This would include three to seven 'doubled' pieces, three to five 'single' pieces, a king, and the row of pawns (which may be staggered on more than one rank, or have holes). Assuming a full row of 10 pawns...which is not mandated, although it is likely...this makes for 20 to 30 pieces per side according to voter preference. Your comments are invited.
Shouldn't we also select a King? A new King would be a royal piece, but could move differently then a FIDE chess King.
Selecting a royal piece might be an interesting addition to Luotuoqi II. I can think of more than a few ideas. :)
Handicapping the Bishops...which are a very good lot... Diagonal Bypasser is not quite as fearsome as it looks; it must move at least three squares to capture anything. (Does it capture friendly pieces as well?) Roc is sound, and incorporates the Camel's traditional move. But it is perhaps more tame than some other choices. Hopping Bishop is another reasonable colorbound piece, somewhat stronger than a straight Bishop. Bishop + Lame Camel has theme going for it, if the voters buy the 'Camel Chess needs a Camel' theory. Dualist Monk has a few too many rules for my taste. Chaplain has not quite so many rules. Since our Pawns (the Eaglets) do not promote, having a 'Bishop' that can is of interest, especially if a relatively strong 'Rook' joins the Tower of Hanoi and the Mule. Sliding Bishop is an elegant way to let the Bishops change colors, if that is desired. Crooked Picket is a zigzag piece, which I confess to not liking much on a personal level. Yet it could fit this game. I lean toward Chaplain, Diagonal Bypasser, Sliding Bishop, Roc, B + Lame Camel, but am listening to persuasion attempts.
Diagonal Bypasser: This is one of the better means I've seen of 'taming' non-replacement capture -- the long move ensures that a careful setup is needed before the bypasser can capture anything at all. But actually I'm concerned it's a little bit TOO weak in a game that features the Tower of Hanoi. Since it's almost always going to be beneficial to split the Tower up as much as tempi allow (eight extra pawns are better than a queen, so just think about eight Commoners...), the board will probably get pretty crowded, leaving the bypasser all but paralyzed. Roc: Camel + another leaper seems to be to be better suited for a larger board, or at least a less crowded one. There's a fool's mate on white's second move. Those camel leaps are dangerous on this board, and with another leaper to help set them up... Hopping bishop: Ordinarily I would hesitate before putting something this powerful (somewhere between rook and cardinal) as a 'minor' piece, but with a rook-class knight, half-knight pawns, and a (who knows? maybe double strength?) queen, this end up playing very well with the others. The dangerousness of the leap-rider will be lessened on the crowded board I expect for this game. B + lame camel: Not necessarily an inspired piece... but certainly functional in its role. It should be about rook value for most of the game, which does seem to be in keeping with the standards set by our previous choices. And it does include the theme movement. Dualist monk: A piece that splits slows the game down, but we already have the Tower. On the other hand, doublemoving speeds the game up. On the third hand, its short range makes it entirely defensive. I have no clue whether I like this piece or not. Chaplain: Perhaps the most conservative color-changeable bishop imaginable, and it seems to me to be a good implementation of a color-changeable bishop. My only concern is that its promotion abilities imply the potential to promote to another Tower of Hanoi, just at that point in the game when the Tower fragments were beginning to finally get cleaned up. Sliding bishop: Another good implmentation of a color-changeable bishop. I guesstimate its strength as slightly less than rook, which seems about right for this game. And it does include a non-capturing lame camel. :) Crooked picket: A neat way of 'taming' the cardinal-class crooked bishop down into a more minor piece role -- my guesstimate is that it weighs in at just under rook-strength, like many of the other pieces here. And it does include a lame camel movement as part of its move, for those who are interested in voting the theme. At this point, I like the sliding bishop, the crooked picket, and the hopping bishop, though I have no idea what order those will be in by the end of the month, and the dualist could easily find its way onto that list as well.
just a short response to the last comment. The sliding bishop's non-capturing move do not seem to include the camel, Since it is bishop plus optional wizir, it must be a n-n move or a color changing one, neither of which include the camel.
When I first read the rule for The Cube, I had assumed it was a piece that changed hands (using a Reversi piece) on the board, and the question I had was: How does a Cube move? Now I see that it's just an off-board marker, I'm disappointed. But I'm already ready for the first Variant on Luotuoqi: The Cube is a piece that moves like Ralph Betza's Ghost, and starts in the same square(s). Now if your opponent threatens to mate you with a double-ply move in two by tossing The Cube, you can unlock the game by threatening the Cube, forcing him to take his double-ply move off-tempo and/or abandon the attempt all together. Far-fetched, but fun to see, if only once.
When will the new Bishop be revealed?
<p>Inquiring minds wanna know.
In a very divided vote, the winner is the Diagonal Bypasser. A different method of counting votes might have given either the Sliding Bishop or Chaplain the nod. I'll add this to the page over the weekend. Thanks to everyone who has voted on New Rules so far; that poll closes on the 30th.
Anyone have comments on the new rules proposals, or at least the proposals made since the last time we adopted a New Rule?
Well, I was kind of holding off until the web site got updated to contain any new suggestions made since the beginning of May. Glenn said there was at least one.
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.