[ 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 Legler's Chess. Modest 1926 variant using an Archbishop and a Chancellor. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]George Duke wrote on 2018-05-27 UTCIt's hard to tell whether this appeared before or after Capablanca's. Legler a California chess champion puts one RN and one BN on 64. David Paulowich wrote on 2004-08-28 UTCExcellent ★★★★★Replying to Charles Gilman: Legler probably allows 'castling' using the Kings and the pieces in the corners of the board. So leaving the Rooks on the h-file means that they will still be available for castling after the Chancellors have left their home squares. When I independently came up with Paulowich's Chancellor Chess in 1997, I started off with that kind of castling rule. My variant just adds Chancellors (on the a-file), but also switches the Queens with the remaining Rooks. The revised version replaces castling with a King's Leap rule. Currently playtesting my Zillions file (kingleap.zrf) for this King's Leap Chess. <p>Michael Howe cites Schmittberger as giving the Marshal and the Queen equal value in 'Grand Chess.' Wow! I consider the Chancellor (Marshal) to be at least a pawn lower than the Queen in Unicorn Chess and Unicorn Great Chess. Note: the Piececlopedia entry for Camel has recently turned into a mini-debate on piece values. Anonymous wrote on 2004-07-26 UTCWhat's this about the beginner's scale being 1-3-5-9? I never saw that until I came to chessvariants.com. Every source I'd previously seen said minor pieces were worth 3.5 pawns each. Charles Gilman wrote on 2004-01-18 UTCGood ★★★★I am slightly surprised that the new compound pieces are on Queen's-side files. Does this really play better than having them King's-side? Michael Nelson wrote on 2003-02-10 UTCI've found that the BN is about halfway between the R and Q in value, 6.5 pawns for Spielmann values. (I agree with Ralph Betza that Spielmann values are more correct than the beginner's 1-3-5-9 scale.) Ralph methods rate it at 4 atoms = 6.5 pawns. Note the following: 1 atom piece (Wazir) = 1.5 pawns 2 atom piece (Knight) = 3.0 pawns 3 atom piece (Rook) = 4.5 pawns 4 atom piece (BN) = 6.5 pawns* 5 atom piece (Queen) = 8.5 pawns 6 atom piece (RNN) =10.5 pawns* 7 atom piece (Amazon) =12.5 pawns* * Hypothetical Spielmann values Pieces of Rook-strenght or less obey the equivalence 1 atom = 1.5 pawns, but stronger pieces seem to gain additional value. I assume this is because the strong pieces normally mask the weakesses of their components. So rather than giving the BN a bonus for not being colorbound, a colorbound 4-atom piece (Bishop-Camel for example) should be penalized. Also note the each simple piece had one major weakness: Knight: Short range Bishop: Colorbound Rook: only 1/4 of its moves are forward So BN, RN and Queen all mask two major weakness. Peter Aronson wrote on 2003-02-09 UTCGood ★★★★Is there any generally accepted value for a Cardinal/Archbishop/Janus on an 8 x 8 board? The value 7 Pawns comes to mind, but I'm not sure from where. Possibly it's 1.5 Rooks, or the average value of a Rook and a Queen using the Spielmann values (4.5 and 8.5). Tony Quintanilla wrote on 2003-02-08 UTCExcellent ★★★★★Zillions file added, thanks to Peter Aronson. Tony Quintanilla wrote on 2003-02-08 UTCGood point. Not a major modification, but awaits development.... 8 comments displayedLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ EarlierPermalink to the exact comments currently displayed.