[ 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 Chess Variants with Inverse Capture. Several variants around the idea that captures are done in the manner of the captured piece. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Rodrigo Zanotelli wrote on 2013-04-12 UTCHelp me with something: With this variant you capture a piece X that is attacking your piece Y, by using piece X capture moves with this Y piece? OR If you can attack a piece X with your piece Y, using your normal fide capture move AND ALSO attack piece X using piece X capture move. You can capture the piece X using piece X capture move (and only this move). George Duke wrote on 2008-06-14 UTCMuch discussed in 2007, Chess with Inverse Capture uses the method of capture of the one attacked in order to capture. Allowing every piece to do so wreaks havoc on any reasonable strategy, and Betza shows these as family of games abstractly, not seriously to play. He recommends having ''some Inverse Capture pieces on the same board as some normal pieces'' for better comprehension in trying some moves. The theme is different capturing modes, and CVPage Index shows about 100 CVs available already. George Duke wrote on 2007-11-01 UTCIf following couple of the Comments on CVwIC, Abdul-Rahman, for a good game it is essential to use the second section recommendation of Ralph to have only ''some inverse capture pieces on the same board as normal pieces.'' And my 29.October recommends specifically Knights (for 10- or 11- or 12-square), but any one piece-type is ''more natural in not having to interpret each piece's ability changing as they do by position with each move.'' So, definitely forget about Pawns, they would be ridiculous though presented by Ralph in the pure form SimpleICChess. Pawns are omitted in most of Rule Number 25 options in ''91.5 Trillion...'' recently for this Mutator. Supposing only Knights have Inverse Capture ability enhances only Knights, and that is plenty. So there would be no interest in weird three-piece endgames of the full form. The article, it is true, is like 'Multiple Occupancy Miscellany' (and many other 'Betzas') in apparently being of diverse subject matter, and the Immobilizer, Gorgon, and Medusa are equally important here to Inverse Capture. The connection Ralph makes is at the 4th section: ''Basilisks have a gaze that turns things to stone, while Gorgons turn you to stone if you see them. This is the difference between direct and inverse capture,'' writes Ralph. So the article is potentially about everything inverse or inversion loosely. (Or would 'converse' or 'complement' be better? We understand from the context though it is not exactly the mathematical definition.) Betza gets as far as including Deferred Effects, Immobilizing reversals, and Capturing 'inverses'. This article could well be called 'Inverse Chess' instead. Time spent on it is because it is one of 50 Betzas better than current fare in being more than conventional writing up of one particular set of Game Rules as all-important followed by touting how good the game is. Most rules sets do not get played anyway beyond the scripter. Rather, here it covers a field of Chess on theme of Inversing. Abdul-Rahman Sibahi wrote on 2007-11-01 UTCEncouraged by Mr Duke's comment, I decided to play against my self a few games (for the lack of otb opps.) The Conclusion I got to is that the game is seriously imbalanced. Pawns are very powerful (since they're nearly invincible, and can only be attacked from two squares,) and still you have eight of them. It's also difficult to checkmate the King, since it is very limited in movement. My impression is that Betza finds this only interesting in a 'freezing' context, since he didn't include it on a page of its own. Mind you, the page's name is gorgon.html If anyone (other than George Duke, who already endorses it) would provide his analysis for the game, or a chess program that plays it. I will look into three pieces endgames, maybe I will come up with some ideas. Until then, I don't like this variant the way it stands. George Duke wrote on 2007-11-01 UTCIn section 4, Ralph Betza differentiates among three immobilizing types: standard Immobilizer moving Queenlike and causing adjacent enemy(ies) to freeze; Basilisk, like the legendary creature with lethal gaze, fixing any opponent piece it can 'see'(meaning along Queen-lines); and third Gorgon freezing any enemy 'seeing' the Gorgon. Ultima has variants better than the original, not in CVPage, and the Repellor described by Betza pushes adjacent enemy piece(s) one more square away from an arrival square, and if that is not possible, any are captured. So, Repellor is one vehicle for making multiple capture possible without multiple occupancy. There are many other instances, for example, Rococo Long Leaper that may plurally capture. George Duke wrote on 2007-10-29 UTCStill within the first two of 9 sections of Inverse Capture, Ralph Betza speculates ''...how the game would work if you had some Inverse Capture pieces on the same board as some normal pieces.'' Clearly that would be the better embodiment, more natural in not having to re-interpret each piece's ability(ies), changing as they do by position with each move. Suppose only Knights have Inverse Capture capability. We in fact incorporate that option in '91.5 Trillion FCVs' at Rule Number 25. If on Betza's 8x8, Knights take inversely, then Queen attacking Knight can itself be taken. So, Knights thus empowered will seldom be captured by Queen or Rook. The third section is not so related to this article, describing a Mutator ('Immediate Effect') that allows a capturer to continue capturing as long as possible. The idea of Taylor's Immediate Inverse Capture within is that only to attack(Betza's Medusa-like from first section that immobilizes) is to be captured: the piece is immediately removed, no choice in the matter, as itself captured. These are not so well playable as Simple Inverse Capture particularly with the Rule applying to only one or two of the piece-types as stated. George Duke wrote on 2007-10-25 UTC1997 was a big year for naming pieces Medusa. The naming of Medusa is the lead-in to this 1997 Betza article. Ralph Betza calls 'Medusa' a piece like Immobilizer but instead of adjacency, the mechanism for immobilizing is whether the piece attacks the Medusa(causing the same Immobilizing on attacker as Immobilizer). Also in 1997 pamphlet 'How To Play Medusa Chess', also precisely the lead-in for 'PoM', Gary Gifford calls 'Medusa' an equivalent to 1960's Ultima Immobilizer(one-, two- or three-stepping) plus normal captures. Gifford must have been aware of Ultima if not web-based Chess Variants. [Anyone please inform if knowing Betza's Medusa is used elsewhere; we suspect other CVs even by JJoyce or GGifford or JGood themselves may have that we glanced but have not reached again, yet it seems to originate here with Betza; and welcome any corrections] George Duke wrote on 2007-10-17 UTCSwitching Chess and Chess with Inverse Capture have important feature in common. Switching Chess is not singled out randomly, rather fitting right in. Ralph Betza's last sentence in the second section(that's all we have reached yet) states: ''... my interpretation of the rules of FIDE Chess, a Pawn on the first rank can only move forward one square and a Pawn on the second rank can make an optional double step.'' Why bother with that sentence out of the blue? Because Betza being so smart realizes the case comes up here and full of other ideas he does not amplify further. So we must. First, Switching Chess often switches a back rank piece with Pawn to get the Piece out. There we usually play that then Pawn retains a double step. The point is that Pawns often appear thus in Rank 1, requiring an interpretation. Second, likewise Chess with Inverse Capture Pawns would not infrequently appear on Rank 1. Think about it, though there never has been a Preset available. If a Black Bishop (perhaps just capturing a Knight) stands at b1, an initial-position White Pawn at c2 may take the Bishop by the latter's mode of capture. The move is c2xb1 (Pawn takes Bishop), leaving the Pawn at b1. Ralph says that then, when not capturing, a follow-up move of the Pawn dis-allows b1-b3. So let it be done. George Duke wrote on 2007-10-16 UTCAt the end Ralph states that the most interesting one in this article, ''great and playable'' is the first one, simple Inverse Capture Chess. Captures are made using the style of capture of the captured piece. Nothing else is affected. The elementary, yet unobvious idea has the counterintuitive greatness of the Withdrawer in Ultima, which I personally first saw played at Reed College, Oregon, chess club in the 1970's. So here if a Bishop attacks a Rook two squares away, for example, the Bishop can move one square along that diagonal, as well as normal moves along any other diagonal, but not the second square to capture that Rook. Instead, the Rook on its turn can capture the very same Bishop that two squares away, but not move only the one intervening square. The same for any piece that is attacked by an opponent piece or pawn. The capture cannot take place according to normal. Instead, the opposite (attacked) piece can capture the attacking piece on its turn. We figured out the shortest Foolsmate and the code for it. It will be fun to break this great, CV-motivating article, one of Betza's 20 best, from 10 years ago periodically into 5 or 10 Comments. In the Intro Betza describes a cousin of Ultima Immobilizer he calls Gorgon, or Medusa. The Gorgon, or Medusa, freezes or immobilizes whatever piece attacks it, a piece having later use than year 1997. This still does not even cover the material of the first two of nine sections in CVwIC. Great job, Ralph. George Duke wrote on 2007-10-13 UTCExcellent ★★★★★Ralph Betza productions are always richer with ideas than current fare. Never before Commented, this article is so thick with ideas there will have to be a follow-up. In mere introduction to RBetza's Inverse Capture system of games, first note others comparable. J P Neto borrows the idea in 2003 Delegating Chess, but that one permits full transfer of power both moving and capture within the same side. Knight-Relay is an early 1970's CV of Mannis Charosh with the key provision that a piece guarded by a Knight can also capture as a Knight again on same team. Who among us can decipher the ROT-13 coded message in the second section, which explains the puzzle of what is the (quickest) Foolsmate for simple Inverse Capture Chess? In development, Betza cites W.B. Seabrook's 1920's Rifle Chess and own 1970's Conversion Chess. Precursor uses are found in Inverse Capture of pieces Basilisk, used in 2003 Nemeroth, and Gorgon. See the 'HemiDemiSemiGorgon' that is logical extension of how the Gorgon is an outgrowth, or inverse really in Betza's terminology, of the Basilisk. 10 comments displayedLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ EarlierPermalink to the exact comments currently displayed.