[ 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 Mono-dimensional Chess. Small, one dimensional variant with unorthodox pieces. (1x10, Cells: 10) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Jonathan Rutherford wrote on 2007-08-03 UTCExcellent ★★★★★I myself have givena stab at a 1 dimensional chess game. I called it Rutherford's 1 dimensional Shogi. Independently, I thought of the idea of Shogi pieces, and created what I feel was a very good game. Here is the link: http://www.chessvariants.org/shogivariants.dir/1dshogi.html Sadly, it is apparent that my game has not gotten the attention I'd hoped, since I actually find it to fill the niche of 1-dimensional chess games quite well. As far as I can tell, playing with Zillions and going solo with my own board and pieces, it is a very enjoyable and surprisingly complex game. So why hasn't it grabbed attention like mono-dimensional chess or other small shogi and chess variants? I suppose it is because of my self aggrandizement. I wanted to be sure I always had the credit for my magnificent invention, so I named it after myself. I also didn't present the rules in a very interesting fashion. But give me some credit, that was several years ago, and I've aged some since then. But at the heart, is it the fact that my little game is still too complicated? Is simpler better? I've never played LCC's game, but I commend his answer to simplicity without too much predictability. Perhaps a solution will one day be found, and a public-gripping one dimensional chess variant will finally take its deserved place. Anonymous wrote on 2007-02-01 UTCExcellent ★★★★★Why don't we let E promote? L cannot get to the last square without taking the king. Ludamad wrote on 2005-11-22 UTCExcellent ★★★★★I like the simplicity, it does beat tic-tac-toe. But as with other simple games, two good players will always tie. But, as you said, a perfect chess game would be no different. Just maybe make things more complex, checkmate happens rarely. Nasmichael Farris wrote on 2004-12-07 UTCIN the texts of Vernon Rylands Parton, he also mentions a linear chess--it is available onsite; check out 'Curiouser and Curiouser' by Parton, who also invented Alice Chess and Medusa (Demigorgon) Chess. Fun games all. Anonymous wrote on 2004-12-06 UTCExcellent ★★★★★KEWL. Was I the only one who noticed that? LCC wrote on 2003-02-09 UTCThank you for your comments. As has been mentioned before, this game suffers from predictable results. This can be easily explained by the very limited 'play tree', that is, the way different games branch out with different plays. Since there are only 4 pieces to each side, each with an average of 2 or less possible moves per play, it becomes easy for a human or computer mind to analyse all results of a move and play for draw. Normal chess is the same, but the number of pieces and average possible moves make it impossible for a human mind and any contemporary computer. But I have indeed been giving thought to this variant. It has occurred to me that Shogi-style dropping of captured pieces could offer enhanced play branching possibilities, for example. And randomness could reduce the ability to do the most favorable play. For example, when capturing, the capturing player rolls a die. With a result of 4 to 6, the capture occurs normally. 2-3, the capture does not happen and the turn is lost. On a 1, the capturing player loses his piece. While this classic idea is too boring for a 'normal chess' variant, it's a surprising twist for 1-D chess. Or another where you throw a die at the start of your turn with the die result dictating which piece you can move (e.g. 1=K 2=E 3=W 4=L 5=any 6=none). I know this variant won't likely become as complex as FIDE chess, for example, but I have found other uses for it, such as using it to train blindfolded play. It really helped my memory of piece positions and threatened areas, allowing me to start playing blindfolded 2D chess regularly. And I'm sure children could be amused by it, although I suppose it would be better for them to be taught FIDE chess directly. It sure beats tic-tac-toe, though :) Anonymous wrote on 2003-02-09 UTCExcellent ★★★★★I like this game very much. I think LCC underestimates its own game, considering it 'simple'. Despite having so few pieces and being played on only ten squares (!) the game is much fun and at the initial position all four pieces of each side can make a move. This proves that the way to find new exciting chess variants isn't always to search for larger boards with lots of pieces of many different types, to make complex games or to switch to the 3rd and 4th dimension. Maybe we should 'look inwards' because the small have their say, too. (Remember David and Goliath, hehe). The explanations about piece movements do not state clearly whether the Executor's one-step movement is a non-capturing movement or not - only the sample game makes this thing clear (for example move 6.ExW) Tomas Forsman wrote on 2002-08-03 UTCGood ★★★★I like this game =) It's a fun game to play. Is there some way to force some forwardness into the game to avoid situations where the only option is to give up or draw by 3 time repetition? -=T=- Matt Burke wrote on 2002-08-02 UTCLCC mentioned using dots rather than squares to make the game more 'one-dimensional'. But let's go even further: use different colored line segments to represent the pieces and the empty squares. <p>And for representing a game you could use a layout like the standard for showing the evolution of a one-dimensional cellular automaton: write (draw) each successive board position under the previous one. <p>Not only do you have fun playing one-dimensional games, but you might just make interesting abstract art! Glenn Overby II wrote on 2002-08-01 UTCThe ZRF is now available. Enjoy! Alfred Pfeiffer wrote on 2002-07-30 UTCOf course this variant is new, but there are already some examples with chess for one-dimensional boards: 1) The 'One Ring Chess' by L. L. Smith 2001, where 32 fields are arranged to build a closed circle, published at the Zillions page http://www.zillions-of-games.com/games/oneringchess.html. 2) I have a bilingual book (German and English) Dr. Karl Fabel, C. E. Kemp: 'Schach ohne Grenzen - Chess unlimited' Walter Rau Verlag, Duesseldorf und Kempten, 1969 with the following short section about the subject (I quote from the english part, FCR = Fairy Chess Review, TDR = Thomas Rayner Dawson): Boards We now move off the 8x8 board, it is sometime necessary! In 1944, as a wartime diversion, FCR had a tourney for problems of any kind on an one-dimensional board, that is a single line of squares of any lenght. N. M. Gibbins who proposed and judged the tourney, expected the entry to be small. In fact there were 85 problems. TDR won 1st. and 2nd. prizes with two sets of problems. The themes of the first set, of 8, were 'self- interference, line-closing, grab, crosscheck, chain interference, mutual obstruction, and triangular Grimshaw interference'! How did he get all this on a single line? By using composite pieces. No. 1 is one of this set. We will refer to squares simply by the the numbers 1, 2, ... 15, 16, starting from the bottom. The rider (R for short) at 16 can be play along 16, 13, 10, 7, 4, 1, as a 3-rider, and along 16, 11, 6, 1, as a 5-rider. The problem is built on the fact that 16 and 1 are in both sets. The solution is 1. K9 P5, 2. P12#; 1.... P12, 2. P5#. Not 1. P5 threat 2. Rx13# as black is stalemate, P13 is now pinned. And not 1. P12 threat 2. Rx6#, also stalemate as P6 is now pinned. These are two highly thematic tries. The mates are discovered mates, there is a double battery from the rider at 16. Two-line chess on a one-line board! The position which the referred diagram No. 1 to is following; White: K8, R16, P4, P10 (R = combined 3-rider and 5-rider, 4 pieces) Black: K1, P2, P6, P12 (4 pieces); Board 1 x 16, Mate in 2, FCR 1944. Regards, Alfred Pfeiffer Joseph DiMuro wrote on 2002-07-30 UTCYou could give Rutherford's 1-dimensional Shogi a try. It looks playable to me (then again, I haven't tried it yet :-D) Doug Chatham wrote on 2002-07-30 UTCGlenn, <p>Would you submit your ZRF for publication? Perhaps someone can use it to compose an interesting (helpmate, perhaps?) problem. LCC wrote on 2002-07-30 UTCWell, of course, this hadn't been tested. Still, it's the first of a kind and perhaps someone can think of a better version. Larger, maybe. Besides, mathematics teaches that complexity increases exponentially with dimension. The fact that this game can be easily and fully explored (possibly in all combinations of moves) can't be exactly an argument against it, because in theory, bidimensional chess can be emptied in the same sense (of course, no computer able to do so already exists). Too many draws in chess. Isn't this why we're in the chess variant 'bussiness'? :) Glenn Overby II wrote on 2002-07-30 UTCPoor ★It's a draw by repetitive boredom, unless someone blunders. I programmed a Zillions file for it this afternoon, and the computer cannot win without help. But neither will it lose. Nice theory; I'd like to see a playable linear chess (yes, it's been attempted before). But we're not there yet. William Overington wrote on 2002-07-28 UTCExcellent ★★★★★This is fascinating. After just two moves for each side there are an amazing number of possible positions for the game! An interesting game, perhaps ideal for email games. Also, by being a simplified game, perhaps an attempt to have a computer play it will be an interesting exercise. I hope that it is successful and gathers its own literature of games. William Overington 28 July 2002 16 comments displayedLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ EarlierPermalink to the exact comments currently displayed.