Rated Comments for a Single Item

~~Later~~ ⇩Reverse Order⇧ ~~Earlier~~

Fugue. Based on Ultima and Rococo this game has pieces that capture in unusual ways. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]

Jeremy Good wrote on Tue, Oct 20, 2009 09:52 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★

There is a misunderstanding in our current game regarding the nature of spotting for archers. Quoting from your rules:

'FOR LONGER SHOTS, some other friendly piece must spot the target by being ADJACENT to it or TWO squares away in an unobstructed STRAIGHT LINE.'

By 'some other friendly piece' do you mean friendly to the target or the archer?

Joe Joyce wrote on Fri, Sep 22, 2006 03:49 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★

Just played [and lost] this delightful game. I found it fast-paced and exciting, with both sides having good opportunities throughout the game. Excellent piece mix, and unusual in that each piece is different. Before I played, I thought that might detract from the game, but I found the 8 different pieces enhanced the game, as did the cannon-pawns. This game is much more direct than Ultima, and less positional and more combinatorial than Maxima. It has very high play value.

Roberto Lavieri wrote on Fri, Nov 12, 2004 09:25 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★

Michael:
What happened with a PRESET in Courier for this nice game?. 
Can anybody help?

George Duke wrote on Sat, Mar 20, 2004 11:20 PM UTC:Poor ★

At request here is a Poor--because CVP has no 'Fair' or 'Average',my real estimation, so to balance previous 'Good'. Game was just backdrop for brief exchange about whether there can be absolute standards to judge games, not methods to create sets of rules. I shall certainly use other pages to comment further on the topic of interest should RLavieri respond, because Fugue itself is irrelevant to the subject raised, and to avoid hypersensitivity. I submit the criterion Piece-type Density, when high, can be overcome, depending on the game. I have argued that Jacks and Witches' 9/84, nine pieces on 84 squares, works well, though exceeding (admittedly arbitrary) 10%, perhaps partly because Jack is in hand. Out of courtesy, (the developer seems to have guessed) I overstated regard for present game when it is really typically Average convolution, benefiting in ratings from the collaborative effort that went into decision of Bowman's power, sort of replay of the 2003 Chess-form by committee.

George Duke wrote on Fri, Mar 19, 2004 04:16 PM UTC:Good ★★★★

RLavieri cites '23/47' as if some irrelevant, random number out of the blue. Far from it. Actually, recognizing that more than any other number, 23 squares precisely are reachable by Orthodox Queen unobstructed on 64-square board [Or better, 22.8=23 is the average for Q, varying among 21,23,25,27]; and finding that 47 spaces exactly are reached by Winged Amazon [Q+N+Falcon] on average from the twelve centermost squares[((51x4)+(45x8))/12]-- this 23/47, in fact, by chance expresses important measure of relative strengths of two basic compounds, whilst Falcon-Amazon situates centrally on 64 squares, as good strategy dictates. Immediately, particular ratio's relevance to 80- and 100-square boards remains obscure.

George Duke wrote on Thu, Mar 18, 2004 04:52 PM UTC:Good ★★★★

A general criticism of Fugue is the high number of piece types (nine) for
its sixty-four squares, ratio 9/64. A much-commented game lately  is
Maxima with ratio piece types to squares 9/76, still (too) high, compared
to Orthodox (Mad-Queen, FIDE) 6/64, RNBKQP. (Somewhat afield, at one time
on CVP there were discussions of initial piece density where Orthodox shows
50%, as Fugue.) As further ex., in 84-square contest judging, my main
critique of Tamerspiel is this same Piece-type Density, 20/84 there,
twenty different types of pieces, confusing strategy. There is a point at
which game piece differentiation distracts and detracts, players having to
dwell on interpretations of rules before even considering actual moves;
any chess-like game on 64 sqs. with say 16 different ways of moving surely fails.
At some point, criteria like Drama, Decisiveness, Clarity and Depth, as in
Mark Thompson's 'Defining the Abstract', need be used more systemically
and justified than 'variantists' do today.  Games developers justify
choices with only 'I like this' or 'That works' without explanation.
On what basis? By what other criteria than the five mentioned above?--I
have five more to name for measure in another comment.
Now Fugue is neat adaptation to 64-sqs.,worthy of its 'Excellents',
retaining Cannon Pawns, Imm. and Swapper, the crux of Rococo, but the nine
game piece forms may confound tactics, sort of leveling play where often
one move is about good as another.

David Howe wrote on Thu, Mar 18, 2004 03:35 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★

It's interesting to note that the Swapper is critical in this game -- without it, a player could form a perfect defensive position (using only 3 pawns, 1 immobilizer, 1 shield, 1 queen, and of course a king). Anyone care to take a stab at what one of the perfect defensive positions would look like? My solution is posted in this comment, but you'll have to 'view source' to see it.

Peter Aronson wrote on Tue, Mar 16, 2004 09:37 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★

This looks really neat, and if I ever have any free time again, I'm going to play around with it some. I do wonder why you eliminated the suicide rule, though. Apparently, while in music Rococo was followed by Classical, in art and architecture it was followed by Neo-Classical. Confusing. <hr> I can see why you replaced the Withdrawer, it being so comparitively weak (and even weaker without the ring board). I wonder if making the Withdrawer immune to the Immobilizer would increase its value significantly? It'd be horribly irregular, though.

8 comments displayed

~~Later~~ ⇩Reverse Order⇧ ~~Earlier~~

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.