[ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
Shanghai Palace Chess. A blend of Chinese, Japanese, and Western Chess. (9x9, Cells: 81) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]In reply to Mark Thompson's recent and welcomed comment. Mark, yes, other setups were experimented with. The first was as you suggested. But since western pieces could advantageously exchange themselves for Shogi pieces the game was much more volatile. Thus the shift to the cultures starting off facing each other. A second variation had a Gold General on D2 and F2 and a Silver General on E2 (this was mirrored for Blue). Western pieces were also arranged different. In that setup, blue had a hard time if red played a certain opening. In fact, it seemed that red could almost win by force. The posted setup neutralizes red's big opening advantage. I think there will be a pre-set for Shanghai Palace Chess in the near future. Also, Larry Smith has expressed interest in helping with a ZRF for Zillions. I think that players who give this game a try will find it strategically and tactically challenging. There are opening patterns, traps, combinations... In response to an earlier comment comparing the making of Shanghai Palace Chess to being somewhat like trying to make a beautiful woman by 'combining all the best qualities of a beautiful blonde, a beautiful brunette, and a beautiful redhead into one woman' [and this was stated in a negative tone] But give me the jpegs of those women and I can use a photo/paint progam to... well, anyway I bet I could get one heck of a darn nice image.
Regarding random placements... Has anyone tried with fortresses on opposite CORNERS, adjusting the rule of opposite-kings to diagonals? Would it work? If it does, then the only difficult case is when a fortress is in the center and the other is on a corner... Maybe (just thinking here, I haven't tested this and I don't know if that would be too powerful) we could give blue some control about it. For example, letting him swap two adjacent sections of his own if that happens. (That is, if it's blue's fortress which is in the corner, he would be forced to play with both fortresses in the center, but if his fortress is in the middle [and red's is in a corner] then he could choose if he wanted opposite corners or parallel corners)
Gary, did you try any other opening arrays? I'm curious about whether it's really best to have the Western and Shogi pieces opposite their counterparts. I suppose the Xiangqi pieces would have to be across from each other, because of the opposite-kings rule. And wherever the Xiangqi pieces begin would have to be the fortress. Maybe there could be a 'random opening' version of SPC where the 3 sections are arranged at random at the start of the game, subject to the constraint on the Xiangqi section. Then arranging the pieces within each section might also be done at random, or maybe they could be placed at the players' will, a piece at a time, in alternation.
I dedicate this comment respectfully to Dr. Suess, for reasons which will soon become clear. I started to write this as an e-mail response to a player/inventor who suggested that I make changes to S.P.C. But I feel it will do more good here, as a comment for all interested to see. Because of the story associated with Shanghai Palace Chess, i.e., that of a wise man teaching three students a lesson so that they will better respect Chess, Shogi, and Xianqi, I feel that I must really leave it as it is. If it is not liked, then that perhaps is its purpose, to put more focus on the other three games. To change the Western, Chinese, or Shogi elements further would destroy the entire concept... would make the wise man's lesson meaningless. I know that the game is quite playable. And for the game tester and me it was quite fun. Enough so that we put Shogi and Xianqi aside for 2 months and played Shanghai Palace Chess face-to-face (on a real board) for 2 months before I submitted the game. To glance at it and think about it for a few minutes and then refer to it as a monster or a chaotic mess [in contrast to playing 20 or so games of it]well there is certainly a big difference regarding the basis of perception... sort of like reading a movie review and commenting, as opposed to actually going out to see the movie. I think Doctor Suess would see the negative comments regarding S.P.C. as the 'Green Eggs and Ham' syndrome. Would you play it on a train? Would you play it in the rain? I would not play it on a train. I would not play it in the rain. I do not like Shanghai Chess. I do not like it, I must confess. ,,,, Anyway, I think that about sums it up.
I would be glad to assist in making a ZRF of this variant. Whether or not it is a 'Frankenstein's Monster' or an 'Ugly Duckling'(both of who just wanted to be liked by others). :)
In regard to a Zillions version of Shanghai Palace Chess, a programmer friend of mine is [was] working on script. However, he just got swamped by tons of work-related programming and it may be a while before he can complete the ZRF. I think a ZRF is desperately needed for this game, as first impressions (with no actual game-playing basis) certainly seem to run on the negative side of the scale. Perhaps some would be willing to play via Game Preset? I will let ChessVariants know the moment the ZRF is ready.
I have to play this game before give an opinion. Some elements sound interesting, but I have doubts about how can look the game play. Is it coming a ZRF?
After reading over additional Shanghai Palace comments I realized something interesting in reference to the introduction of the game. For those who do not know, there is a brief story about students arguing over what was better, Chess, Shogi, or Xianqi. A wise man combined all three, asked the students to play it and then asked them to answer as to which they thought was best. And perhaps that wise man's action was indeed wise. For if the students' responses were 'that to merge the 3 games is to lose the beauty of each' then indeed they have learned a lesson, perhaps the lesson that the wise man already knew. However, that is not a lesson that I conciously intended. In fact, if you play this game you will realize that Cannons are more powerful than they are in Chinese Chess. And that a Western Pawn can support a Chinese Pawn. That the Queen can sometimes exchange herself for a Shogi Pawn to very good effect. One very respectable player/inventor who I admire referred to Shanghai Palace Chess as a 'Frankenstein Monster.' I am hoping it is, perhaps, more of an ugly duckling (although I happen to see beauty in it). I do hope, however, that players will give this game a try. Then, if they hate it, they have at least experienced it... felt the gravity of it. Perhaps I should finish the short story about Shanghai Palace Chess... I am now very curious as to how it ends.
I don't like to rag on a game invented by someone who just praised one of mine, but in the interests of promoting good game design, I'll speak up anyway. This game reminds me of Frankenstein's monster, which was just pieced together from the body parts of various corpses. I doubt that what makes Chess, Xiang Qi, and Shogi such good games can be retained by combining them in this way. Each game is a carefully constructed whole. If you just rip pieces from each game and combine them in the manner that you have, I don't expect that the new game will retain the appeal of any of the original games. If you want to marry the best qualities of each game together, it would be best to find a way that is more seamless. However, that may be difficult, or even impossible. Combining all the best qualities of each game would be sort of like combining all the best qualities of a beautiful blonde, a beautiful brunette, and a beautiful redhead into one woman. While the game may be interesting to play, it lacks the aesthetic appeal that I find in games whose elements are woven together more seamlessly.
This is in response to Michael Howe's comment giving Shanghai Palace a 'poor' rating. First, I would like to thank Mr. Howe for taking time to comment, it is much appreciated. I would also like to ask if he played a game of Shanghai Palace Chess. I doubt it very much since it is very new. I played this game for 2 months against a Shogi/Chess/Xianqi player. I lost my first 4 games, but still had a blast. I then went on to win 6 straight, with mixed results following. My opponent liked it so much that he is working on a Zillions engine for it. Is it confusing? It depends on the player's knowledge. It is intended for players who know how to play Chess, Xianqi, and Shogi. If you know how to play those games, then Shanghai Palace is very easy to play. As for the idea of giving up a Western or Chinese piece for a weaker yet returnable Shogi piece, that is part of the strategy. It is a matter of tactical economics. Also, whatever is seen as a disadvantage in the game, well that same disadvantage applies to the opponent. I welcome comments, regardless of them being favorable or not. I would really like to hear a comment from someone after they have played the game. Sincerely, Gary Gifford
10 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.