Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
I think Muller is correct; still, in this game at least you promote only to lost pieces (or you can promote to General). Maybe make promoting to lost piece only if you have lost both, might be one possible subvariant, too?
Allowing promotion to powerful pieces like Rook completely changes the character of the game. It really doesn't have a Shatranj flavor anymore. The strategic objective becomes promoting Pawns, like in FIDE Chess. While in Shatranj promoting usually gets you nowhere. Upgrading the Queen from Ferz to Commoner might already have this effect, if the Pawns now promote to this type of Queen.
Thank you for the comment, Orleanian. (Which one, btw, old or New?) That is a nice little intermediate step, with a piece I didn't think of. A minute's consideration shows the logic of the piece, and it certainly does fit neatly after Step 2. Hm, if I recall correctly, Jeremy Good made an icon for that piece, an elephant with an 8-pointed star on its side, that can be found in the Alfaerie: Many piece set.
Thanks for the comments, George. This is the third variant I posted, and the first one anybody played. It is a modest shatranj variant, and because it had a decent reception, it changed my area of interest from 4D games to shatranj variants. And I agree that it is very modest, but it does exactly what it advertises; it plays halfway between historic shatranj and modern chess. But rather than weakened chess, it is high-performance shatranj. The larger point is playability. A game can be good, and a game can be successful, but these are 2 different things. This is a decent game that is very playable. It is extremely easy to learn, and can be played with standard equipment. It corrects the major flaw of shatranj, that stilted awkwardness and lack of flexibility, with minimal change to the historic game. It gives the game flow. But it makes the game slow. Given that 99.9+% of people that play variants learned chess first, a game with a 2-square bishop, even if it is jumping like a knight now, and a 1-square queen, is just too slow for modern sensibilities. Would'a kicked butt 1000 years ago. But time has marched on, and shatranj bit the dust way before buggywhips. Still, for anyone looking for an easy way into variants, this game is one. Even if it is weakened FIDE. ;-)
George, many criticisms here contradict others you've been leveling at me recently. Where I haven't, as you maintain, properly attributed ideas or documented origins in other games, here I have, and for this I am a namedropper. Other games have been criticised for being too sketchy in their descriptions; here, where there is a discussion, I'm longwinded. Chieftain is too far from the FIDE standard, this is too close to the shatranj standard. Lol, George, if I were sensitive, I might begin to think your criticisms were more from ideology and even animosity than from a true consideration of the qualities of my games. I might even think you were trying to provoke a reaction from me! Fortunately, I'm not that sensitive. :-D Enjoy! Joe
'Modern Shatranj' is worse than Shatranj anyway because of damage to Knight by powerful Elephant. [end quote]
If the statement is true, then it would follow that Chess, Xianqi, and Shogi are all lesser games than Shatranj... why? Because the knights have less relative value than they do in Shatranj. The Duke premise is that a weeker knight factor makes a game worse. Let us look at Fide Chess... We have Bishops and a Queen - these make the Knights even weeker than do Joyce's Elephants. But who would argue that Chess is worse than Modern Shatranj, which in turn is worse than Shatranj?
On another note, Joyces' Modern Shatranj made it into CV Tournament 3. How could this happen if it were a bad game? It had to be voted on. It obviously got enough votes. It is true that there are some similar games that already existed. But that does not make MS a bad game.
I also believe the idea of making a Short Range Alice Chess has much merit.
Keep up the great work Mr. Joyce. You are a very good game designer in my opinion. You recent critic's comments don't hold up to a logical review.
i like the rule if you bare the enemy king, you win, even if you can be bared next move, it is more exciting, and makes for less draws he he. i thought this rule used to exist first, but then got changed, is this right? i think i remember reading here on this site someone saying this somewhere.
Joe: Shatranj (and Makruk) variants are indeed popping faster then we can classify them. I am currently working on an 8x8 variant with Chinese Cannons added. One could also call it a sort of 'mini-Shako' variant, with the Bishops and Queens removed.
My 2005-03-30 Comment on the Shatranj page ended with: [Also every Shatranj related ZRF that I have tested will record a 'bare king victory' without giving a chance to make a final move resulting in a 'two bare kings draw'.]
While my Zillions Version 1.3.1e will not run Christine's Zillions (Version 2?) implementation of Modern Shatranj, I have examined the code and suspect that the same problem exists relating to the bare king victory rule. The good news is: Peter Aronson's ZRF for his variant Gothic Isles Chess uses a complicated coding to correctly handle the rule: 'Bare King counts as a win, provided that your King cannot be bared on the very next move.'
hey joe at this site here http://homepage.ntlworld.com/gpjnow/VC-GM.htm#F the 'alfil + fers' is listed under the name 'Ferfil'! there are a lot of interesting piece descriptions at that site.
Thank you for your comments and references, David. This elephant does not show up in the CV piecelopedia, but does in piece descriptions within the rules of both games you mention. How many others, who knows, but it seems to be a logical 'new' piece. This does demonstrate how difficult it is to come up with something truly new in the way of pieces. Hasn't stopped anyone from trying yet, including me. A comprehensive set of rules for shatranj variants is, based on just these variants posted in 2005, very possibly doomed. Boards, pieces, setups and even setup strategy all have expanded considerably. A shatranj piecelopedia and a book on shatranj variants might be the best we could hope for.
Shatranj Kamil (64) is my recent attempt at providing a comprehensive set of rules for Shatranj variants.
Consider the endgame position White: King (c1), Knight (a6) Black: King (a1), Pawn (a3). White can force checkmate with 1.Nb4 a2 2.Nc2, or stalemate with 2.Kc2.
If White choses to play 2.Na6 instead, then, under the variant rule that Pritchard cites, the Black king can escape stalemate by transposing with the Black Pawn. Question: under the rules of Nilakantha's Intellectual Game (web page by John Ayer) can Black 'slay the piece of the enemy in his vicinity which imprisons him'? That piece is the White King!
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.