[ 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 Prince. 8x8x8 3-D variant with new pieces. (8x8x8, Cells: 512) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Tracy wrote on 2010-07-25 UTCAverage ★★★I was thinking about this the other day. If a Rook in 2D chess is defined as a piece which controls the whole line it's sitting on, then perhaps a rook in 3D chess should be defined so that it controls the whole plain. But I was having trouble thinking how to define it. Your definition of 'Making too rook moves in the same plain fixes this problem by allowing it to be blocked, etc. This way you can CheckMate the king too. You can't force check-mate with only a 3D Queen. Remembering all the different varieties of night moves I think will be the hardest thing with this. In 4D Chess then, a extending out this way, would make 3 Rook moves with-in the same 'cube.' (Obviously 6 of the 8 cubes will be distrorted in the 3D projection we play in.) TRacy Tracy Gavin Smith wrote on 2009-06-27 UTCI'm glad folks are reading, and having this discussion! Sorry I've been too focused on other things to particiapte much myself. Please let me know if there's anything I should clarify. On that note, after re-reading David Paulowich's comment and my response dated 12-28-2008, let me clarify one detail: Though Scientists can be thought of as hook movers, David's penny definition has the same potential problem with Scientists as it does with Reporters and combination planar movers because some spaces are in more than one possible plane of movement. Again, I'm flattered people are reading. Maybe someday someone will actually finish a game! :P Joe Joyce wrote on 2009-06-27 UTCAs I don't think Gavin will mind, and since you insist, George, I'll transfer this part of the discussion from Charles Gilman's MAB Overview and glossary Comments section to here. Multipath is a too-inclusive term for a good definition of a piece. Let's consider some multipath pieces. First, the Falcon - it has 16 destination squares, all at range 3, and there are 3 paths to each target square. The Falcon is, however, an 'Or' piece; it takes this path OR that path OR this other path, traversing only a single physical route from origin to destination in its actual move. The 'hook rook', the 'planar' piece of Chris Witham, is similar to the falcon, in that it has 2 possible routes to any destination square, and uses only one to go from origin to destination. In terms of physics, these pieces are both representative of the 'billiard ball' theory of atomic particles. While they may change directions on the trip, the pieces travel a well-defined and measurable path from beginning to end. As long as 1 path is open, they are good to go. The 'planar rook' of Prince is like a quantum particle. It travels, and must travel, every possible minimal path simultaneously in going from origin to destination, and thus it can be blocked by a single piece anywhere in the area over which it travels. This is an 'And' multipath piece. It travels by this path And that path And the other path And ... and that's why it's so blockable. This refines the 'Multipath' classification. One of the key features of planar pieces in Prince is the shape of the shadow that blocks a planar piece, a rook, say. In Prince, it is always a rectangular shadow that starts at the near edge of the blocking square and runs perpendicular to the line between the 2 pieces that blocks the planar rook in Prince. This is not the only possible shape for a shadow. Another very reasonable shape would be a cone, with the tip being the blocking square and the triangular shadow spreading out directly 'behind' the block, away from the planar piece. This would allow a planar rook to penetrate past the first obstacle. Varying the angle of opening of the shadow would give other effects, including bending the shadow back toward the planar piece by making the angle of opening greater than 180 degrees. The current angle of opening for a block's shadow of the planar rook is exactly 180 degrees. And I would argue this is yet another way to classify planar pieces. Charles, if you are following this, would any of this comment be pertinent to any definitions or classifications you might use? George Duke wrote on 2009-06-26 UTCJoyce is sort of rapping out poorly-thought-through ideas of his about what planar may mean. For example, inappropriately under the wrong article again Joyce is referring to material of Gilman's ''M&B13: Straight and Crooked Movers.'' As far as I know ''planar'' is attempted to be defined here in 2004 since it is not in CVPage Glossary. Joyce's extensive last comment again rudely and clumsily at Gilman's glossary belongs over here, if you would, sir. Gilman's first appraisal here says, ''I am sorry I cannot be more encouraging, that this variant adds little to the existing range of 3-D variants.'' Then in follow-up over 3 years later, Gilman changes his rating giving 'Good'. I too have not studied G. Smith's idea for a new class of pieces, planar, very much at this article yet and base my provisional 'Poor' on comments of Joyce and Larry Smith for fuzziness of definitions. I will study this CV in July and re-appraise possibly changing 'Poor', since I am what Jeremy Good calls as close to conscientious critic as appears within CVPage. We need seriously to consider adaptation of category ''Planar'' of Gavin Smith as well as inclusive ''Multi-path'' of mine to both separate systems of Betza and Gilman. ''Multi-path'' as a term precedes ''planar'' apparently by a decade. Gavin Smith wrote on 2008-12-28 UTCThank you for the comment, Dave. The idea of a 'hook mover' as you describe it, with the alternate definition you provide of how blocking works, accurately describes the Base, and I believe also the Scientist. Hopefully this can provide clarity to anyone confused. The 'hook move' idea is not quite accurate for the Reporter in all cases. In particular, if a Reporter is near one corner of an open field, there are some spaces near other corners that cannot be reached with a hook move unless you allow the hook to pass outside the field, but can be reached by the Reporter nevertheless. Also, the penny definition of blocking is not quite accurate for the Reporter and combination planar movers. The multiple planes some spaces are in messes it up, and you may end up placing pennies in spaces that can be reached using other planes. L. Lynn Smith and I discussed this when I first introduced Prince. He too wanted to call the planar movers hook movers at first. But I will stick to my appellation of 'planar' move, partly because it is essentially the 2 dimensions of the move that characterize it, and partly because of the technicalities described above. But hey, I'm thrilled you get it. Thanks again. David Paulowich wrote on 2008-12-28 UTCThe original Hook Mover can be found in Taikyoku Shogi. This piece makes makes one or two moves like a Rook, but must stop immediately upon making a capture. It is called an Android in The Toddler. See Adrian King's Jupiter (not indexed) for the Great Hook, a Hook Mover which is limited to at most three squares on the second leg of its move. An unrestricted Hook Mover will sweep out three planes in a 3-D board. Now I am going to attempt to provide an alternate definition of the move of the Base in Prince. Choose a plane containing the Base and place pennies in every cell that has at least one of the possible 'hook moves' to that cell blocked. [RULE 1] The Base cannot move to any cell containing a penny. [RULE 2] The Base cannot move through any cell containing a penny. Charles Gilman wrote on 2007-06-09 UTCGood ★★★★For me the planar pieces are what makes this game what it is. The Towers Game is just another variant using the same pieces as a good many 3d variants (including a couple of my own). A front rank dominated by planar pieces in number rather than just strength might be interesting. An interesting way to increase the range of planar pieces is to consider the Scientist a compound piece, as it covers two quite different kinds of plane, and the University and Spy as triple compounds. As the names seem to be the only ones for planar pieces I will stick with them and try to follow the theme, so let's call the Scientist a compound of the Theorist (where the diagonals are at right angles) and the Technician (where they are at 60°). For the additional compounds of one but not both Scientist components I suggest Base+Theorist=Study, Base+Technician=Laboratory, Theorist+Reporter=Reviewer, Technician+Reporter=Printer, Base+Theorist+Reporter=Library, and Base+Technician+Reporter=Press. Abdul-Rahman Sibahi wrote on 2007-06-04 UTCGood ★★★★Excellent graphics. I finally got to appreciate the starting position (and I just realized that there's no Prince in the starting setup.) However, I still don't think this game is playable for humans. Not because of it's complexity, but because of the many piece types. I made an attempt to simplify this game, a whole lot, to make it more playable and closer to Standard two dimensional Chess. I called it the Tower's Game because it's played on a tower-like board. Joe Joyce wrote on 2007-06-04 UTCVery nice update; it looks really good. The new diagrams are quite good and very helpful. This would be more of a strategic than tactical game for humans, no? ;-) Nice to see you back. Anonymous wrote on 2006-12-25 UTCGood ★★★★Interesting, though I think there should be no more than 50-60 pieces per side. I have been trying to design something similar to this while avoiding the almost inevitable problem of too many pieces. It may be a good idea to add linear jumping pieces to supplement the others you have devised. Joe Joyce wrote on 2004-11-15 UTCI can tell you from personal experience that a planar-type piece is even more powerful in 4D chess than in 3D. I would also recommend a smaller board than 8x8x8x8. The problem with any planar-type piece is that it's so powerful that you have to clog the board up with lesser pieces to prevent instant checkmates. The more powerful the strong pieces, the more plentiful the weak pieces is a really easy and very bad trap to fall into, if you want a game that can be played by humans. And simple leapers work fine in 4D. I used a knight that no longer has the leaping ability, and it kicks butt, for my version of hyperchess. In 2D, you can add a lot of pieces; the complications are in piece interaction. By the time you get to 4D, the board provides a good bit of the complication, so the pieces should be simple, to balance. In hyperchess (does this need a new name - am I infringing - how does Hyperchess 4D sound - that's what I thought). In H4D only the standard 8 pieces and 8 pawns per side are used, on a 4x4x4x4 board, giving a starting piece density of 12.5%. And the movement rules are basically simple translations from 2 to 4D. I would argue that good movement rules and piece densities are very board-dependent. Ok, guess I'm saying geometry-dependent, both the topology and the exact measurements (as I'm finding out in a variant that mixes 2D-moving and 4D-moving pieces; ie: some pieces treat the board as 2D, some as 4D, and some may choose.) Is there a more appropriate forum for this discussion? Guess I'm too new to know. Joe Ben Saucer wrote on 2004-11-15 UTCExcellent ★★★★★Great concept! The planar pieces seem a bit too powerful for a 3D version. However, I think they would be more useful in a 4D game. I think the dimensions of movement of a piece should not excede half the number of dimensions of the field. <p>I have been playing around with the idea of a '4D8L' type game, but it now occurs to me that a 4D field would be too 'open' for a family of 'knight-hoppers' and 'line-movers' alone, even if there were 512 pieces and 512 pawns per side. So the concept of 'planar' pieces my help balance the 4D game. Matt Arnold wrote on 2004-07-13 UTCExcellent ★★★★★Visualize for a moment that we have software that displays the game of Prince on binocular-vision LCD glasses. The glasses superimpose images onto a transparent view of the wearer's real environment-- not virtual reality, but augmented reality. Imagine also that we have two telemetry gloves. The index finger and thumb are tracked in 3D and 'mouse click' when they touch-- the two fingertips are displayed as two cursors floating in the image. I would want to play this game. Since a computer simulation has no gravity, we do not need surfaces on which to rest pieces. Each piece sits on an intersection of three translucent lines, one for each dimension, in an eight-by-eight cube. Grasping and pulling any edge of the cube allows free rotation. The cube should fill half the visual field, since the user's reach can be transposed on a huge scale, or the user can also change to the size of the pieces and stand inside the cube when desired. Ideally though, the glasses would be tracked with telemetry so that the cube would always float in the same space in the user's real environment while the user moved around it. In this mode the whole cube should fit within easy reach, perhaps three feet to a side. Without gravity there is no reason for pieces to be stable pedestals with radial symmetry along only one axis as they are in 2-D chess. The shapes that represent one-dimensional ranged movers could be 3-D stars. The piece is formed of arms extending from the intersection it occupies, and dwindling to tips before reaching adjacent intersections. Each arm points out toward an intersection to which the piece could move if it weren't obstructed. So, a rook looks like a thickening of bright, bold opacity along the three translucent board-lines of its intersection. Arms of bishops and merchants do not lie along the board lines; they reach across the gap toward adjacent line segments and intersections respectively. Leaper pieces have thinner, threadlike arms, that fork into Y's tipped with spheres. Two-dimensional movers are formed of a set of intersecting surfaces. Pawns are half-spheres. Kings are large spheres. For a game this complex, no one should complain if there is as much graphical computer assistance as possible. All pieces glow when under threat. A large crown symbol appears outside the cube when check is given. When a piece is grasped and dragged, the intersections to which it can legally move light up. Moving an index finger onto a piece, without touching the fingers together on it, causes its name and animated graphic description to display in the space above the cube. The piece on the board grows without thickening its arms: the arms stretch as far as they can without being blocked, to show all the intersections to which it can legally move. At the option of the user, all pieces on the board simultaneously extend their arms/spheres/surfaces as ghostly fogs of color. Since the sides are red and blue, they blend into purple where they cross. This represents threat from the red and blue sides, and varies with intensity based on how many pieces have a line of sight to the intersection. Charles Gilman wrote on 2004-05-16 UTCSorry that I cannot be more encouraging, but much offline analysis has convinced me that this variant adds little to the existing range of 3d variants. The best that I can say is that it could be played with two FIDE sets of each of four sizes (or 2 of 4 novelty styles, or 4 of 2 if directional) with some Kings marked. The mixture of pieces is too complex. Even MY arrays don't exceed 16 piece types (Leapale) to your 23! The established 3 simple, 3 double, and optional 1 triple combination works well with the right pieces (Rook, Bishop, and one other) but serving up 3 doses in 1 variant is rather OTT. Taking the three groups in turn, the radial linepiece group is standard enough, in the most complex Bonnart 3d variant as well as in most of mine. The oblique leaper group surely has the same memorability problems as Michael Howe highlights on my large 2d variant Great Herd; even the Bonnart variant sticks to 3 simple ones and their triple compound. Planar pieces not unlike Chris Witham's make sense on so large a 3d board, but they do overshadow, to the point of questioning the need to retain, the radial ones. Then there is the assymmetry of the array. The choice between symmetry by rotation or by reflection is an aesthetic one (Alberto Monteiro inspired me to modify my original idea for Tunnelchess from the former to the latter) but this variant seems to dither between them. Given that only 5 types of piece are colourbound it hardly seems necessary. 14 comments displayedLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ EarlierPermalink to the exact comments currently displayed.