[ 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 Supremo Superchess. Decimal variant with extra powerful pieces. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Jeff Rients wrote on 2004-08-26 UTCI think perhaps that Frederick overreacted a bit. After all 'Supremo' and 'Supremo Superchess' are not the exact same name. However, a simple Google search of www.chessvariants.com would reveal the prior existence of a variant called Supremo. When working on new CV projects I have found the Google search tool provided on the CV pages main index to be invaluable for avoiding these sorts of issues. Lim Peng wrote on 2004-08-26 UTCFreederick, There is no pushme-pullyus in this supremo superchess. I do not know there is a game called supremo by Fergus Duniho,as there is no published version that I know of. Freederick wrote on 2004-08-26 UTCPoor ★Where are the Pushme-pullyus that supposedly were introduced in this game? I read the description of all the 'Super-Terminators' and stuff, and none of them move as the Pushme-pullyu. Is this 'Supremo Superchess' really the same as the 'Supremo' invented by Fergus Duniho? It sure doesn't have the look and feel of his other designs. Why is some other guy credited with inventing this variant? Where is the real Supremo? %-/ Fergus Duniho wrote on 2003-12-16 UTCOkay, I just checked my past emails, and there was no indication that I had plans for changing Supremo. There was an email from Peter asking me what I wanted to do about the Supremo ZRF, and it apparently went unanswered. That seems to be all that happened. Peter, it's okay to include it with Rococo. I'll make a Supremo page later. Fergus Duniho wrote on 2003-12-16 UTCSupremo is the game that actually introduces the Pushme-Pullyu, but it's not the same game as Rococo with Pushme-Pullyus. I remember nothing about future plans for changing Supremo, but I'll check my past emails and see if there's any mention of it. Peter Aronson wrote on 2003-12-16 UTCGood ★★★★The published Rococo ZRF does not contain Supremo, but the development version did (see the header of the Rococo.zrf for details). At the time ZRF was ready, Supremo was still in flux (different setups and possible removal of the Cannon Pawn's ability to jump friendly pieces were still under consideration), so I took it out. I e-mailed Fergus about this at the time, but I believe this was during a time when his life was very busy, so I'm not surprised he didn't remember. <p> <hr> <p> While games with enormous power on the board aren't everyone's cup of tea, they can be fun. And the orthodox pieces can be a great deal of fun in such a game, since they can happily threaten the super pieces, since they are still quite capable, even if worth less. Consider a fork of two super pieces by a Bishop defended by a Pawn. This is what Ralph Betza refered to as the 'leveling effect'. Fergus Duniho wrote on 2003-12-16 UTCWhat is the point in distinguishing between discovered and direct illegal moves? An illegal move is illegal. Period. Rule 6 is redundant, since the very meaning of illegal implies that a player can't make an illegal move. Rule 9 makes no sense. Why on earth would there be any kind of rule against taking back illegal moves? I share the same opinion on the name as Michael Howe. As the inventor of Supremo, I take special umbrage at the name, though since I've still neglected to publish the rules for Supremo, I doubt Peng has any knowledge of it. Unlike the mere superlative use of Supremo here, my Supremo is just an Ultima variant. I think it's included with the Rococo ZRF. The piece descriptions are a bit ambiguous. I'm not sure if the Super General hops as a Leo or as a Grasshopper. The more literal reading suggests the latter. Likewise, I'm not sure if the Super Rook and Super Bishop hop as Cannons and Vaos or as Grasshoppers do. If these pieces do hop as Grasshoppers, they are a bit less powerful than I first imagined. Nevertheless, I expect that the pieces are really too powerful. I once considered a Rook+Cannon piece and a Bishop+Vao piece for a game, calling them by the names of Tank and Bazooka, but I decided they were too powerful. For example, the Tank could pin two pieces with its Cannon powers, then capture one and still keep the other pinned with its Rook powers, then capture the other one too. Also, you couldn't block a direct Tank attack, because it could just hop over the piece that tried to intervene. Even if these pieces really hop as Grasshoppers, I would still expect situations like these to arise. The way this game is named, and given the pieces used in the game, I imagine that Peng believes that more powerful pieces make a better game. In contrast to this, I believe that a good Chess variant has to find a balance between pieces that are too weak and pieces that are too powerful. Chess is a good example of a game with this balance. I expect that Supremo Superchess is very unbalanced. 7 comments displayedLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ EarlierPermalink to the exact comments currently displayed.