[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ][ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ][ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]Comments/Ratings for a Single Item Later ⇩Reverse Order⇧ Earlier⇩ Earliest⇧ L. The list of official nominations for the variant-by-committee.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]George Duke wrote on 2007-08-28 UTCThe main Commenters and proponents for various favoured forms here in early 2003 were Glenn Overby, Doug Chatham, John Lawson, Peter Aronson, and Jianying Ji. On 8x8 Pawns became Eaglets (unpromoting), Knights were replaced by Mules also colour-changing, Bishops Diagonal Bypassers, Rook additional power of one-path Camel, Queen = Tower of Hanoi, and Kings unable to castle have full-spectrum two-step leap initially. (Rook here is similar to what 'FatallyFlawedM/C' thread is developing with respect to Mao and Moa breaking down Knight's move to go respectively with R & B) L. Lynn Smith wrote on 2003-07-14 UTCHere's my idea about the Tower of Hanoi. 1. Limited to 8 stones 2. May either merge or break, but not both during a move. 3. Can capture when breaking. 4. Eaglets promotion is dependent upon the specific size of the Towers and promotes only to that size. Reasoning: 1. Having the starting size as the maximum is logical. There needs to be a limit so that players can develop some modicum of strategy. 2. Preventing the Tower from both breaking and merging in the same move means that the individual pieces will block the movement of each other without fully merging. So a player in order to increase the power of a blocking Tower must either fully merge with it or take two moves to preform a partial merge. This can easily result with the use of the Cube. 3. Since the full Tower piece could take that particular cell, the partial Tower should also have that right. 4. Promotions should be rare. By having promotion to Towers as specific, this would definitely limit them. If the players were allowed to create full Towers from non-specifec partial Towers then the game would devolve into a Tower War. And allowing the Eaglet to promote to 1 stone from non-specific partial Towers would quickly consume them, and again devolve the game into a Tower War, only less so. BTW, I like the Rook with the camel step. It's simple and fits the overall theme of the game. Too much spice can spoil the soup. Glenn Overby II wrote on 2003-07-14 UTCI like Doug's thoughts. The proposed alternative of allowing any two Towers to promote an Eaglet to a one-stone Tower also has some merit. John Lawson wrote on 2003-07-13 UTCThere's another logical possibility also: Eaglets may NOT promote to Towers of Hanoi. But I think it would be more fun if they can. Doug Chatham wrote on 2003-07-13 UTCOops,forgot one issue.<br> 5. Eight is the maximum height of a Tower of Hanoi. Doug Chatham wrote on 2003-07-13 UTCThere doesn't seem to be much of a consensus about what to do about the Towers of Hanoi. My opinions:<br> 1. A Tower can split and attack in the same move.<br> 2. A Tower may split and merge in the same move.<br> 3. An Eaglet can only promote to a Tower if flanked on both sides by Towers of the same size. Also, the Eaglet promotes to a Tower of the same size as those Towers flanking it.<br> 4. We should have a vote to choose among the various options that have been mentioned. Daniel Roth wrote on 2003-07-13 UTCExcellent ★★★★★There seems to be some troubles with the Towers around. Some solutions I can provide: 1st limit numbers of towers per player to 4. A pawn can not promote to a tower piece if there are already 4 towers for that player around. 2nd can a tower split and merge with another tower as one move. 3rd pawns promotes only to 1 piece towers. 4th limit tower heights to 8 John Lawson wrote on 2003-07-13 UTCHere's my two cents: 1 - Towers can split at will into two Towers of arbitrary size by moving part of the Tower as a regular move. 2 - The moving part of the Tower can capture. 3 - A moving Tower can recombine with a separate Tower whose square it can move to without hinderance or penalty, even if it split from another Tower that turn. Here's the different part: 4 - An Eaglet flanked by two Towers of any size (even different) is promoted to a single piece Tower. This promotion is easier, but it only results in a strong minor piece. The largest number possible is 16 per side, including the original Tower. If each Eaglet were promoted to a full height Tower, it is mathematically possible for each side to require 2,048 draughtsmen. Peter Aronson wrote on 2003-07-13 UTCThere was also the question of whether splitting moves could capture. Glenn Overby II wrote on 2003-07-12 UTCAnd the question of whether or not two Towers of different heights are identical pieces for the purpose of causing promotion. (I would say No...among other things, to which level does the Eaglet then promote? Answering Yes creates a new question.) Glenn Overby II wrote on 2003-07-12 UTC<p>Peter inquired: <blockquote>OK, Glenn, but how do we decide minor rules points like these? Do we take informal straw polls in the comment system? Or do you as the project editor decide? Or do we save them all up and have a big single 'finishing' vote?</blockquote> <p>If we can get a clear consensus in the comment system, I'll edit it into the finished product. Otherwise I'm in favor of the save-em-up-and-vote final poll. <p>Right now the questions are on the maximum height of a Tower and the legality of a Tower splitting and merging as one move. Any others I've forgotten? (The king-capture thing is off the table for now, I think.) Peter Aronson wrote on 2003-07-11 UTCOK, Glenn, but how do we decide minor rules points like these? Do we take informal straw polls in the comment system? Or do you as the project editor decide? Or do we save them all up and have a big single 'finishing' vote? <p> Inquiring minds want to know. Glenn Overby II wrote on 2003-07-10 UTC<p>Looking at Peter's questions... <ol> <li>What is the maximum height of a stack of stones? With Eaglet promotion it is possible to get more than 8 stones on the board -- can a stack contain more than 8? <ul> <li>I favor an 8 stone limit as well. I did not vote for the rule that won precisely because of its interaction with the Towers. </ul> <li>Are the pieces of the Tower of Hanoi allowed to both break apart and merge with others in the same move? Or are the breaking moves and merging moves separate? <ul> <li>I favor break-or-merge, but could live with break-and-merge. </ul> <li>And should the Tower be allowed to make capture moves when breaking apart? <ul> <li>I see no reason why not. Only one 'piece' is moving. </ul> </ol> <p>Just my $.02...Glenn Peter Aronson wrote on 2003-07-10 UTCAh, but Mike, you forgot: <p> <blockquote> [Entrant 7] When a pawn is flanked by two adjacent pieces of the same type (not Kings), such that the three pieces form a straight line, either orthogonally or adjacently, with the pawn in the center, the pawn's owner may, as a turn, promote it to the type of piece flanking it. <i>(Example: there is a white knight on b3, a white pawn on c4, and a black knight on d5. White may, as a turn, replace the pawn on c4 with a white knight.)</i>(Adopted June 2003.) </blockquote> <p> And later adopted rules supercede earlier rules, so Eaglets promote by the above method. Michael Nelson wrote on 2003-07-10 UTCThe pawn rule voted on is that Eaglets do not promote--so no more than 8 stones can be on the board. Peter Aronson wrote on 2003-07-10 UTCThe estimable L. Lynn Smith has graciously agreed to do the ZRF for Camel Chess, once we finish defining it. He has a few questions about the Tower of Hanoi: <p> <ul> <li>What is the maximum height of a stack of stones? With Eaglet promotion it is possible to get more than 8 stones on the board -- can a stack contain more than 8? <p> <li>Are the pieces of the Tower of Hanoi allowed to both break apart and merge with others in the same move? Or are the breaking moves and merging moves separate? <p> <li>And should the Tower be allowed to make capture moves when breaking apart? </ul> <p> His preferences seem to be for a maximum of 8 stones in a Tower, and to not to allow merging and splitting in the same move, as it makes the game clearer without it. Peter Aronson wrote on 2003-07-10 UTCWell, it turns out that L. Lynn Smith has figured out an elegant approach that allows the cube to co-exist with checkmate, so there's no need to change things. Peter Aronson wrote on 2003-07-09 UTCOK, here's a stab at Cube Chess, ready for testing: <p> <ul> <li> <a href='../programs.dir/zillions/cube-chess.zip'>cube-chess.zip</a> </ul> <p> Let me know if you find any bugs! Peter Aronson wrote on 2003-07-08 UTCOK, I'm attempting to code up a Cube Chess as a preliminary step. Now, what effect, if any, does the change in rules have on castling? My gut reaction would be it would remove the not in check or through or into check restriction. Thoughts? Robert Shimmin wrote on 2003-07-08 UTCTwo towers of the same height is probably easiest to code into the ZRF, and is probably best for keeping the checker population from getting out of hand. One other possibility that ocurred to me was that any two towers could be used for promotion, but the new tower would be the height of the smaller of the two. Other thougths? Glenn Overby II wrote on 2003-07-08 UTCI have no objection to modifying the official Luotuoqi rules to use king-capture instead of checkmate for victory. If a majority of contributors concur, let it be so. ===== Entrant 3, the second to propose the Separate Realms Rook (under a different name), has withdrawn that entry in favor of Entrant 2's earlier independent submission. I'll make the change in a few minutes. Peter Aronson wrote on 2003-07-08 UTCOK, the cube is fairly straight-forward <strong>if</strong> (and <em>only</em> if) you don't mind having victory be by capture of the opposing King instead of checkmate, and you do away with stalemate. Then the logic isn't too bad -- it's a bit like the Ryu Shogi ZRF. There's two moves in a row for each player each turn, but the 2nd one is often not available. Unfortunately, this is a slight but real change in the rules form victory by checkmate, and it does play differently. <p> <hr> <p> On a different topic, the first two proposals for Rooks are, except for the name, the same piece. Shouldn't they be combined? Glenn Overby II wrote on 2003-07-07 UTCOne question, one plea: Question: Will any two Towers trigger the new promotion rule, or only two Towers of the same height? (I recommend the latter.) Plea: ZRFers out there, the time is upon us. We need someone to take up the formidable challenge of coding The Cube. Everything else appears to be moderately straightforward. If you can code The Cube for an otherwise standard game of chess, let me know. We'll beg and plead to let us put it into a Camel Chess ZRF. :) Glenn Glenn Overby II wrote on 2003-07-01 UTC::waving Hello:: My computer was down temporarily. I'll be up to speed Real Soon Now. Promise. ;) Doug Chatham wrote on 2003-06-23 UTCThat last proposal Robert is waiting for was emailed to the Camel Chess voters around June 8. <p>It reads as follows: <p>11. [Entrant 7] When a player captures part of their opponent's Tower of Hanoi, they may optionally remove another part of it of equal or lesser height from anywhere on the board. 25 comments displayedLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ Earlier⇩ Earliest⇧Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.