[ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
Does anyone know of any digital implementation of this ruleset?
A nightrider variant of this could be called Noctima
A seminal variant that perhaps deserves to be part of a seperate category (e.g. 'Ultima-style Variants') on a CVP menu somewhere.
First, I wanted to say that my opponent handily outclassed me in our game. I felt like every move of mine was a blunder.
Aside from that heavy loss, I found the game very enjoyable. I was definitely out of my element in this type of game, but the types of pieces really complimented each other and I see why this game gets a lot of correspondence and OTB traction.
I said in a former comment: "That may be the only ugly thing of this game: that the immobilizer is too important. As far as my experience goes, he is the central piece in every successful attack. Immobilize the king and capture it with the chameleon. I rarely succeeded in winning in any other way." Since then I got crashed by Francis Fahys in a variety of ways, so I retract that this is a feature of the game. It is just my own lack of fantasy
Of course one piece type may have several implementations. Abbott created the Long Leaper as a piece restricted by consecutive opponent blocking. There are several equally valid implementations; Skewer (x, x', x', x', 0, 0) => (0, 0, 0, 0, x, 0) which can capture consecutively but must land one place immediately after the last captured piece. Skipper (x, 0, x', 0, x', 0, x', 0, 0) => (0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, x) which captures consecutive equidistant opponents, landing beyond the last captured piece equal to their mutual distance. Crazy Hopper (x, 0, x', 0, 0, 0, x', 0, 0) => (0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, x) which captures pieces by landing an equal number of spaces behind them as it was in front of them, but has freedom to move 45 degress between captures. This piece is also the long ranged extension of the King from Turkish Draughts. All degenerate to the Leaper primitive (x, x', 0) => (0, 0, x) in the simplest use case.
Camerons Brownes "Phwar", invented in 2003, isn't mentioned alongside Rococo, Fugue or Maxima, and indeed doesn't have a CV entry at all, yet is probably one the purest Ultima variants I've seen. Its played on a hexagonal board and all pieces have free (othogonal) movement. It has no pawns, one Decider-a Neutron-that wins the game by accessing the central square, or loses it by being captured. It has two Officers-the positron and the electron. Capturing is quite novel-pieces are captured when faced by enemy pieces whose charge cancels out. The piece is captured to make up the difference. If one were envision this as a standalone Ultima piece-a "Balancer", replacing charge with side, then this would be a piece that captured pieces in its line of sight when the piece had an equal number of pieces from each side in its line of sight. Whether such an technical piece is actually playable is another matter, certainly it would have no place among the tamer newer variants.
Not in the sense that its behaviour is describable in the fewest number of cells. In that sense the Replacer, Archer and Swapper are the most fundamental. My list wasn't exhaustive admittedly. I could have also included; Long Replacer (x, x, x') => (0, x, x) most common example of which being the Chinese Cannon. Thrower (x', x, 0) => (0, x, x') Mats Winther describes several pieces using this ability, such as in Oxybeles Chess. And indeed the Pincer Pawn can interpreted as one of the 3 cooperative fundamentals; Pincer (x, x', x) => (x, 0, x) Connector (x, x, x') => (x, x, 0) Splitter (x', x, x') => (0, x, 0) Custodial (pincer) capture is the only one I've explicitly seen in a prior game, having been lifted from Hfenatafl (though the much less obscure Othello, and indeed Go, are built on similar mechanics). Capture through connection is exhibited in 3 mans morris, though by connecting like pieces, with arbitrary enemy capture. Capturing enemy forces by splitting them from the board is the principle form of capture in tile removal games, and one would think the Splitter most closely evokes this behaviour. Coordinator and hypothetical "triangulator" are a bit more wayward than all of these, but among the most fundamental as described by a 2D grid, certainly.
But where is the Coordinator? Is it not a fundamental piece?
In fact Ultima with Replacer and Advancer already exists as a variant (Ultimatum). The Ultima wikipedia page also mentions other variants not mentioned here, perhaps the most interesting being Renaissance. It features a Resurrector, and is the only Ultima variant I've seen to feature pieces that produce net displacement-the Pusher and Puller, although their incarnations in this case are ludicrously weak, being able to compel indirect capture yet only move one square while acting on other pieces. As yet no variant features the full set of Ultima fundamentals. Indeed several have never been featured at all. REMOVER Replacer (x, x') => (0, x) Advancer (x, 0, x') => (0, x, 0) Withdrawer ((0, x, x') => (x, 0, 0) Leaper (x, x', 0) => (0, 0, x) Archer (x, x') => (x, 0) DISPLACER Pusher (x, x', 0) => (0, x, x') Puller (0, x, x') => (x, x', 0) Attractor (x, 0, x') => (x, x', 0) Repeller (x, x', 0) => (x, 0, x') Swapper (x, x') => (x', x) EFFECTOR Immobiliser (x, x', 0) =/=> (x, 0, x') Converter (x, x') => (x, x) Protector (x, x') =/=> (x, 0) Blocker (x, 0, x') =/=> (x, x', 0)
As far as making the game more attacking, that requires little more than replacing the duplicate pieces with the Advancer (the conceptually missing piece of this game) and the Replacer (FIDE Queen), along with a few other tweaks which I elaborated on below.
I see little need to force promotion into this game. It is sufficiently complex. If an extra dimension really needs to be added, then conversion capture is a much more natural fit, with only the king currently using replacement capture. I'm not really sympathetic in general to attempts to turn Ultima and its derivatives back into FIDE. More interesting to purify the concept, which would be a game in which all pieces have equal movement, differentiated only by behaviour.
George Duke proposed that the player with advanced king has to choose between his promotable pieces. If this is enough to give the attacker a decisive advantage - and this could well be the case - I would like this suggestion, for I want to deviate as little as possible from the original game. Of course one would choose the coordinator only if the other two are no more on the board.
Ultima Pawns are so mobile yet not that much stronger, what maybe 1.5 and so less than Rococo Pawns. That's a good idea to add promotion rule by King crossing center line, not Pawn the way Chinese does. In Spengler's subvariant, assume there is required choice to promote one of the three one time, but possibly the Immoblizer suggestion is stronger than the others. What you can see, is that Spengler is borrowing from three sources in the future to reinvent Ultima. Triangulation is Abbott's own later suggestion, and Swapper comes from Rococo and Pushme-Pullyu from Fugue. In Rococo the edge squares strengthen Cannon Pawns as well as Long Leaper. They need strengthening against all-Queen-moving pieces. There Abbott explains triangulation: http://www.chessvariants.org/index/displaycomment.php?commentid=5123.
I have read the rules of all three games but never played them. I think Aronsons introduction of square fields to improve the attacking power of the Long Leaper is quite ingenious. I also thought about some ways to handle the difficulties of attack in Ultima, but didnt try them out seriously. Maybe one experienced game inventor of this site can evaluate my idea better than I do. It goes like this: Your army is subject to some kind of promotion. This promotion happens, when your king manages to advance to the opposite half of the board. The power of chameleon, long leaper and pawns stay the same. Your withdrawer gets the additional power of an advancer, promoting it to a pushme-pullyu. Your immobiliser gets the additional power of a swapper. Your coordinator gets the additional power of a triangulator. Does that make sense?
Very nice critique of 50-year-old Ultima by Georg Spengler rooted in some actual playing. If you get the time, how would you evaluate Rococo, http://www.chessvariants.org/other.dir/rococo.html? Rococo carries forth four of Ultima pieces, the most similarity in that regard of any in the genre, where for instance Fugue uses only two Ultima pieces. Where Ultima is lacking clarity and decisiveness both, Rococo advanced to 10x10, has all four desiderata: depth, decisiveness, clarity, and drama. Maybe Ultima has only average drama too, so mostly what it has is some depth indeed like a puzzle. It seems like Arimaa as ongoing puzzle each move, not all that Chess-like. 'Drama' is in the Mark Thompson sense that the player behind can fairly well catch up.
Here are two other Ultima follow-ups by way of improvement: http://www.chessvariants.org/other.dir/fugue.html, http://www.chessvariants.org/dpieces.dir/maxima/maxima.html.
Ultima is a puzzling game in more than one sense. It seems to violate all rules for game invention. Even its inventor called it a flaw and his reasons are all pretty true. yet it is one of the most successful chesslike games, and its also one of my favorites. First point, he says, it lacks clarity. Of course it does. Playing it does not feel like playing chess at all, its more like solving a puzzle in every turn, so for every move you need much much time. Does that make it a bad game? No, it doesnt. Its exactly what we like on it. The other big point is, that it favors the defender. And so it does. This should lead to draws, at least at a high level of competition. But thats okay. Draughts and Morris are even more drawish, yet they are not bad games. If following an interesting fight it does not matter that much if it finally leads to a draw. Maybe it is even the lack of clarity that makes the game playable despite the strong defending power of its pieces. I cant see that it is bad to advance your pieces rather than stay at home. The more space youve got the more mobility you have. And what is the biggest advantage of that? To be able to bring your immobilizer in a strong position. That may be the only ugly thing of this game: that the immobilizer is too important. As far as my experience goes, he is the central piece in every successful attack. Immobilize the king and capture it with the chameleon. I rarely succeeded in winning in any other way. But yet not ugly enough yo reduce my rating.
Withdrawing is from Fanorona, played on Madagascar. According to "Abbot's New Card Games", the Coordinator and the Immobilizer are original pieces, as is the Chameleon.
A question occured to me. Methods of capturing are taken from non-chess board games. Everybody know the family of games, overtaking from is. Custodianship is from Tafl games, probably also well-known. Withdrawing, if i did not confuse anything, is also from some checker-like board game (i don't remember it's name, region and time of playing). But what about coordinating? Is it also from certain board game or invented by Abbott himself? And, maybe, immobilizing is also refrence to certain game?
There are three major Ultima cousins from the last decade, Rococo, Maxima, and Fugue. I agree that Long Leaper is better not a paired piece on plain vanilla 8x8. Also King as Knight would set off great with Pincer Pawns, as the current comment suggests. Dissatisfaction with U. led to above Rococo, Maxima, and Fugue, keeping the core concept of mostly non-displacement capture. Individual variantists would tend to rate Ultima last, fourth of these four now, for reason of constricting play. Whether over fifty years old is a new CV any longer is debatable.
Fascinating concept, the idea of pieces of homogenous movement differentiated only by their capture method. Perhaps not strictly a chess variant, but a unique subgenre in its own right, & one that I feel deserves more popularity. As for the game itself, there are some strange imbalances which I find surprising; why allocate 2 slots for the powerful long leaper but give pride of place next to the king to the feeble withdrawer as an standalone piece? This is the kind of imbalance one sees in older prechess variants but would not expect in a newer variant... Another issue is the overly defensive nature of the game, with current setup. Having 2 chameleons with no mutual attack method tends to stagnate and cluster gameplay in my experience. Also an issue is the increasing irrelevance of the pawns in endgames. They of course have no promotion ability, which is not feasible for such mobile pieces, and offer minimal threat to the FIDE king, due to its residual ability to capture adjacent pieces. I propose the following alterations; 1. Replace king movement with that of a knight. This adds variation to the dynamic of the game and allows the pawns to present a threat to the king, as they can now be positioned adjacent to it without fear of capture. This also increases their relevance in endgames. 2. Replace the spare long leaper and chameleon with 2 pieces of offensive type; advancer/displacer(orthodox FIDE queen)/queen moving cannon etc. 3. Allow the chameleon to capture king and pawns in the manner of their own capture, but without being restricted to their movement types. This, along with the inclusion of new powerful offensive pieces, which the chameleon the acts as a counterbalance to, makes it a much more important standalone piece, and serves as an important leveller against the power inequity of different piece types. 4. (optional) Allow the withdrawer to capture from 2 spaces of distance (this might make it a little difficult to counterract in opening play, but a far more respectable piece overall) OR merge the withdrawer and advancer, freeing up another piece slot. These alterations would, in my opinion, add a much more open, fluid, balanced, dynamic, and varied mechanic to an already excellent concept...
To go with the current point values for Grand Chess by 'T', and attempted revision at Centennial recently 25 back and with comparison of Michael Nelson's and mine for Rococo recently 50 back, this chart was for Ultima 8 years ago without computer: UltimaValues. All of Rococo, Ultima and Grand Chess should be on all-time recognition list, even if only U. ultimately gets played much, as it was in sixties and seventies. Robert Abbott invented Ultima 50 years ago this fall and he comments at Rococo January 2004. In Ultima Immobilizer may earn 3.0 points over Long Leaper on account of the smaller board.
Thank you for the visual illustrations. I noticed that the written description for the placement of pieces is not accurate. Immobilizers, coordinators, kings, and withdrawers are pictured on opposite files, not the same files as typed out.
H. G. Muller wrote on Mon, Mar 21, 2011 08:23 AM UTC:The set of specially designed Ultima piece symbols is now available as a font, from http://hgm.nubati.net/UltimaFont.zip . When used in WinBoard for piece rendering, it looks like this:
Apart from the Ultima piece symbols assigned to characters KMLXCWPkmlxcwp, it also contains symbols of a square (Ii) and a circle (Oo), which could be useful for other games (eg. Go).
In my piece article Man and Beast 21: Lords High Everything-Else I extend the Chameleon concept to 'Naive-Chameleon' pieces which capture an enemy by the enemy's noncapturing move (and can capture each other) and 'Grand-Chameleon' pieces which capture like Orphans (i.e., like any piece threatening them, not just the one being captured). Both kinds of piece have a fixed noncapturing move, which unless otherwise stated is a Queen move on square-cell boards and a Rook move on hex ones.
Statement 2 is the correct one. See the illustration at http://www.chessvariants.org/other.dir/ultimapieces.html#cham.
I'm sorry, maybe, this question was already answered in one of previous comments, but i want to ask: how chameleon exactly captures? Wich of these statements is true: 1. It can capture several pieces of different kinds with method of one of these pieces (for example, captures by custodianship 1 pawn, 1 withdrawer and 1 long leaper). 2. It can capture several pieces of different kinds, each with capturing method of that piece (for example, it can withdrawl from withdrawer, moving itself, surrounding pawn, capturing both withdrawer and pawn). 3. Can capture pieces of only 1 kind with 1 move. Probably, statement 2 is true, as here player never have to choose capturing method to use ater moving chameleon.
No longer listed alphabetically, Optima was by Michael Howe in 1990's. Baroque was Abbott's first and better name. Aronson classes and links Optima with Abbott's Ultima, D.Howe's and Aronson's Rococo, Mike Hutton's Stupid, and Lavieri's Maxima. Michael Nelson's Fugue came later. Optima is the odd man out, because of listing over fifty piece-types. Optima is more prelude to MHowe's Novo Chess, also hard to find and view now. Moreover, Aronson 14.April.2002 in earlier comment system linked below finds also in 'ECV' other Ultima variants: Bogart's Chess, Renaissance, Ulti-Matem, Ultimate Ultima (by Betza and Ishkanian), and Unorthodox Ultima. Renaissance of course is not Greenwood's Renniassance, deliberately spelled wrong. Aronson finds borderline cases: Interweave, Nemeroth. ( Weave & Dungeon beats Interweave hands down. ) Aronson also mentions his idea for combining Ultima and Chessgi and groans, ''Ultigi. Ah, maybe not.'' Hey, Aronson's hesitancy and forbearance already in 2002 are prophetic of widespread angst over fairly-mindless proliferation today. Discretion: valour.
Reexamination of Abbott's Rococo Comment from almost five years ago is placed at Rococo. Tchervenkov shows where to play Ultima online. Crudely estimating, we use in 2004 P1, K2, W3.1, Co2.9, Ca4.3, L5.3, I8.2. Aronson names other Ultima-derived games already by 2003: Maxima, Stupid, Optima, Rococo. The Excellent is for Ultima's standing the test of time after 45 years, despite its problems in gameplay these Comments address, for example, Lavieri's.
Ultima's (1962) theme is that each piece captures in a different way than all the others, and there is no displacement capture except King's. Rococo (2003) recreates the theme. The last Comment suggests Chameleon may capture up to seven(7) pieces at once.
Seven(7). How many pieces at most may the piece capture? Immobilizer 0; King & Withdrawer 1; Coordinator 2; LL 3 (on 8x8); the Animated Illustration shows Chameleon capturing 7 pieces at once on 8x8. An enemy Immobilizer diagonally adjacent to the arrival square makes eight(8) since that is the 'capture' mode of Immobilizer, transferred to the Chameleon.
A puzzle: Immobilizer=0, King=1, Withdrawer=1, Coordinator=2, Pincer-Pawn=3, Long-Leaper=3, Question:Chameleon=?
Hi all, fans of ultima! Here is the only site, as I know, which gives you the possibility to play ultima on-line in real time: http://adage-studio.com:8080/universal. Rules as the official rules, as published first by Abbott. You have to register in order to play. There are also two other ultima-like games: Rococo and Supremo. I wish know whether you like the site. Suggestions are welcome.
There is a better solution to 'Ultima Problem 9! The variant that I play does not allow for suicide, so barring this, the soluction is simply: White: LL at F8 -> G7, blocking all moves but a suicide, or leaping (LL H8 go have fun!)
White now threatens checkmate with LL G7->G6!
This brings up an important question of mine:
Do pieces in Baroque/Ultima have 'Kill zones' (areas of instantaneous vaporization) - That is, Do they create instant death in their 'kill zone' at all times, or must a piece move into a position to make the kill?
(ie: can my LL G7 move into G6 in above solution?)
Thanks
- Kris
Why not include the great sister game MAXIMA in this discussion? Both games are great; and themes from positions in one will likely be seen to apply to the other in many cases.
That's a good idea. We need a new Page, what about 'Ultima Tips'-?. A good theoretical developement may need tons of material; some of us are moderately experienced players, but I�m sure we are not big authorities,and a theory developed by us may be biased, somewhat primitive and far from exhaustive and water-proof. I can do something about it time to time, I suppose that other experienced players here can do something too: Matthew, Antoine, some others and, generally, everybody who visit TCVP can give us something interesting...
Every game should be played by people that master the rules in order to reach a theoretical depth. It's not serious to have discussion on rules - this doesn't serve any purpose. It's impossible to find some real game theory on Ultima in the Internet. How about having it here, at the chessvariants pages? If there are any experienced players around, perphaps they would like to gather observations just in one place?
Is there any reference to the so called Hyperchess?. The name has been also used at least once for another completely different variant, but I have not seen the rules for the game you have mentioned, an Ultima variant. I have also doubts about the goodness of those rules, capturing seems to be more difficult, and certain pawn structures can make the game very slow. It must be tested, before a conclusion.
I learned this game as 'Hyperchess', with some rule differences:
1. The upside-down rook is the coordinator and the right-side-up one is
the immobilizer.
2. Pawns ('straddlers') can only capture by trapping a unit between
two
_pawns_, not a pawn and another friendly piece (though a chameleon and a
pawn or two chameleons) can capture an enemy pawn). They also capture
passively: any enemy piece moving between two pawns dies instantly.
3. Knights ('Striders') cannot make multiple captures.
4. The withdrawer can only move back a single square when capturing.
5. Coordinators can capture passively: the two squares in the rectangle
formed by the king and the coordinator are instant death for enemy
pieces.
Coordinators can also capture pieces when the king moves.
Overall, I think the main effect of these differences (especially 2 and
4)
is that capturing is much more difficult. The most noticeable difference
between 'hyperchess' and chess is that capturing is a very rare
occurrence in hyperchess.Since the 90 degree angle is of extreme importance to the Coordinator and the way it captures, you could also use a model of a Windmill with four little fans (or 'vanes') attached to the side of an upright cylinder with a segment from a paperclip for mounting purposes. When it comes to symbolism, Windmills are more modern than the brick & stone 'Castle' construction of the Middle Ages, and the Rook in chess. Of course, you might want to call the game Baroque like the rest of the world does.
Done! Look at http://home.hccnet.nl/h.g.muller/ultima.html
Could you post a picture or two of your chess set somewhere, and let us have a link to see it?
When I was playing this game I simply could not do it with a regular chess set. Being a fanatic speed-chess player of 5 min. games where you have to move mostly as a reflex, the chess personalities of the piece images were simply hard-wired in my brain. So I made a separate set of pieces, looking nothing like chess men, based on a set of checkers chips and other pieces of wood. The pawns were just plain chips (since I don't play checkers, they meant nothing to me, so no harm there). The King could of course still be represented as an ordinary chess King, since it moves like one. But for the Long Leaper I used a cylinder (remaniscent of a draughts King), for the Immobilizer a Cube (looked pretty immobile...), for the Coordinator a checkers chip mounted perpendicular on another (representing a dish antenna, symbolizing its action at a distance), for the Chameleon a spere (supported on a chip) to represent a spherical mirror in which every piece would see itself. The whole set looked quite nice, with a pretty homogeneous style.
Back in high school (1980s) we had a variant for when we were running
short
of lunch break. We called it Chultima, and at each move we could play as
chess, or as ultima. This made for some very short games, and most of us
were howling with laughter at the (in hindsight) really stupid moves we
had just made.
[For some reason we had slightly different terminology:
Chameleon -> Amoeba ('changed shape', or similar spurious reason)
Pawn -> Roller (because they rolled up and down ranks)
Long Leaper -> Leaper (could only jump a single adjacent piece like a
weakened draughts/checkers king)
Also, the coordinator could only take one piece at a time: in the useful
direction.]I;m currently working on an Atari ST implementation of the game of 'Baroque' - at least the way it was when I learned it back in 1968 (although we adopted the name 'Baroque' we declined to adopt Professor Abbot's 1968 Amendments). If you have a PC compatible running Windows (?) you might be able to boot up an ST emulator so you can play it against itself. From what rumors I have heard, you can use Windows to boot up a lot of ST emulators, and run a different emulation in each window. I guess wonders will never cease! To keep things interesting, I've got flags for the multi-leaping 'Long' Leaper (default is single-leaping), and the Suicide Rule (suicide is prohibited by default), which not everybody necessarily agrees on. Also, flags for center-counter symmetry (whether the Kings are both on the E file) and corner-counter symmetry (whether or not the Immobilizer is on A1 or H1). And then there are some people who prefer to use their first move to decide which Rook to turn upside down, so another flag for that option too. As for tournament play, I don't know exactly how to implement an Email/Webmail option, so I guess I'll have to leave that for the future. Direct dialing sounds like it is easier to implement, but who wants to eat the phone bills? In any case, 5 minutes per move appears to be fair, but how many minutes should we allow the 'operator attendant' to consume in typing out each move? One or two minutes? I think that the early radio chess matches of the 1940s and 1950s were mostly a matter of gentlemanly agreement, so that ought to serve as a guide for any similar Baroque/Ultima tournaments.
I wanna play! And is it like chess???
I'm giving serious thought to slapping together a program that plays
Renaissance in 68000 assembly language. Maybe Ultima (Baroque), too.
Regardless of the game, I don't expect it to perform very well against
machines with far faster processor speeds, but it just might produce some
useful benchmarks to test your programs against. (And thanks for the
link
to Sourceforge; I'm sorry to say that all that C++ stuff at Sourceforge
is
a trifle over my head as I was raised on assembler instead of C.) Still,
whatever I slap together, it only takes a handful of adjustments to
change
one game into the other.
The only things I'm a little bit uncomfortable about are:
1 the multi-leaping rule for the Leaper, and
2 the suicide rule for immobilized pieces.
Are those the main differences?
As for piece name nomenclature back in 1968, we learned 'Imitator' for
what Ultima calls a Chameleon. Does anybody use Mime, Mimic, or Mirror
for that piece as well? The one that looks like a Bishop.
You mentioned how one of the programs currently in vogue recognizes
checkmate as the proper way of ending the game. But isn't the main
difference between capturing the King and checkmating the King a matter
of
one extra ply of searching? When we used to play Baroque, we used chess
clocks, and capturing the King outright just made for easier play.
Finally, as for notational differences, it was my understanding that
captured pieces were set off by commas between each other, all enclosed
equally within a single pair of parentheses, e.g.,
32. Pc2-c6 (Wc7, Lb6, Id6) <--- White's turn, taking 3 pieces
Pf5-f3 (Pf3, Cg3) <--- Black's turn, taking 2 pieces
The advantage to this kind of notation is that it makes for playing the
game backwards just as easy as playing it forward, assuming you have a
diagram to refer to. However, with the Chessish 'x' symbol, do you
repeat the 'x' symbol between every piece you have captured? I don't
mind much one way or the other, as the differences are purely cosmetic,
but if you could describe the notational standard that is currently in
place, that would be great.
So, if I slap together an Ultima game using run-of-the-mill 68000
assembly
language, does anybody using Windows out there have a good 68000 emulator
for trying it out? For tournaments that are not face-to-face, but
involve
some kind of real-time processing, do you have a link that describes how
those kinds of tournaments are managed?
Feel free to send me email as my webbrowser tends to crash very
frequently.
Matthew Montchalin
[email protected]Yes, the Chameleon in Ultima for Zillions can capture two adjacent Long-Leapers in the Chameleon line when the next square is empty. Maxima ZRF's corrects it. Mine is a capture-the-King implementation, and Joost Aan de Brough implementation uses the checkmate condition, although in the last one some pieces values are not the correct. I used some tricks for balance the values, but, unfortunatelly, I have had to generate some additional possible moves, and it has its influence in the computer game play force if you use little time for computer thinking. Chess V plays at a very good level, it should be interesting to see a Computer Tournament, Chess V should be a very strong competitor, because it is far from easy construct a 'master-level' Ultima computer player. If someone constructs one, I think there are not many humans that can beat that program; by the way, Chess V is a bit stronger than me, and I think I am a relatively good Ultima player, but far from master levels, if such concept applies in this game.
Greg Strong wrote on Thu, Jun 16, 2005 05:31 PM UTC:<p>If you are interested in computer Ultima, please check out ChessV. It is free and open-source, and can be downloaded from:<br><a href='http://sourceforge.net/projects/chessv'>http://sourceforge.net/projects/chessv</a><br>I would like to see computer competition, but at present, I believe that my program is the only one in the world that is even capable of implementing the rules correctly. (Zillions plays for capture-the-king instead of checkmate, which, for reasons difficult to explain, is different and does affect the way it plays. Zillions also plays this game very badly because it assigns material values to the pieces that are not even close.) I hope to add support for Rococo to ChessV in the near future. Zillions also does not play Rococo correctly; some complex Chameleon captures don't work right.</p>
I Have not seen Computer Ultima Tournaments. In fact, I have seen only a few engines that are capable of play Ultima. There is at least one Zillions of Games ZRF which plays it, but it is relatively weak. Greg Strong´s CHESS V plays better, and it is an excellent contendor for an experienced average player, although I can not say it plays at extremely high levels. It plays, I think, with an approximate rating between 2000-2200, if you can translate FIDE ELO to Ultima in some manner. If you have not tried CHESS V, you can mail Greg Strong, an active member of this site. I have not seen other efforts looking for stronger programs. On the other hand, Ultima is relatively 'popular' between humans in certain circles, most in Universities, and it is played in many places around the world, but not as Chess, of course, the difference in popularity is, say, 2000 to 1 or more. It should be interesting seeing Computer Tournaments, but I think it needs sponsors and prizes, and I do not know if there is interest enough on it. Some variants in this site are very interesting too: Rococo, Maxima, Fugue and Toccata, by example, are 'evolutive' consequences of Ultima, but much less known by the people. There are Zillions of Games ZRF´s for all these games, but they are not very strong.
Oh! Thanks for pointing me to that footnote on Renaissance. Insofar as
species of Baroque with Pushers and Pullers go, those kinds of pieces can
be deceptively treachorous. I've seen the game played both ways, but I
think that Pushers and Pullers were supposed to be able to affect all
pieces, not just enemy pieces, the only hard part is bringing them into
position to do so. Although Pushers and Pullers move like Queens, they
had to start out adjacent to the piece they were to affect. For one
thing, although they can't really capture pieces directly, they could get
other pieces to do their dirty work for them. For instance, under the
right circumstances, a Pusher could drive a friendly Pincher into a
position that pinches enemy pieces, and a Puller could pull a friendly
Withdrawer away from an enemy Immobilizer, thereby removing (capturing)
the Immobilizer. If two Kings are frozen in place by one another's
Immobilizers, but are fortuitously adjacent to each other, there are
positions where a friendly Pusher could drive its King into the square of
the enemy King, and win the game. Similarly, a Puller that was adjacent
to a Coordinator (Vaporizer), might step back a square and bring a
Coordinator into a 'coordinating' position to bring about a capture or
two.
<p>Naturally, regional rules tend to evolve as time goes on, and household
rules tend to admit to all kinds of variants, and I see nothing wrong with
that, so I was wondering how Jesse Plymale's Pushers and Pullers worked.
I tried to go to his Link, but the Link appeared to be broken.
<p>As for the game of Rococo, devised by Peter Aronson and David Howe, the
Pushme-Pullyu piece looks much more powerful than the Pusher and Puller of
Renaissance.
<p>Do you know if there is a chronological history of 'computer
championships' for Baroque or Ultima somewhere? Are computer tournaments
for these games held every couple years or so? I'm still exploring this
website, so it's possible I haven't stumbled on the right place yet.
<p>Regards,
<p>Matthew Montchalin
<br>[email protected]
Roberto,
<p>
Both the early version of <strong>Baroque</strong>, and the <strong>Ultima</strong> variant <strong>Renaissance</strong>, are described in the <u>Encyclopedia of Chess Variants</u>, the latter in the appendix.
I am not sure what game or games are refered by Mr. Montchalin, and this is the first time I hear about Rennaissance, but I think here are mixed two known games, both from the 60's decade: Ultima and Bombalot. It is not clear which of these games was first, but I think it was Bombalot but not by much time between. Bombalot is a chaotic game with elements of the actual Ultima, but with Bombs, a lot of extremely powerful leaping and multi-leaping pieces instead of Pawns, similar to those in Camelot, Coordinator-Knights that coordinate one with the other and vice-versa, Tanks (Pushers), and Immitator (different from Ultima´s Chameleon, Immitator can move as the LAST enemy piece moved), an exotic Immobilizer that can leap adjacent pieces or move like a King, and without royal pieces in the game . I have played Bombalot in the past, and I have to say that this is one of the most unclear and chaotic game I have played, I think the game was certainly exotic in its epoch and it could produce certain commotion, but it seems it was not well tested in the game play, horrible in my personal opinion. I have not reference to Renaissace or the Ultima versions mentioned by Mr. Montchalin, so I will appretiate if he can give me more information about, if it can be found elsewhere.
Nice description of the game of Baroque, but we always played it with
Leapers limited to capturing one piece, and multi-leaping was illegal; as
for deciding which Coordinator (aka 'Vaporizer') to turn upside down at
the start of the game, thereby turning it into an Immobilizer, that was
White's prerogative to do first, and Black had to choose second.
<p>There are (or at least WERE) versions of Baroque played on a 9x9 board,
with a 1 square Bomb occupying an extra square on the 1st rank, next to
the King on his right, if I recall correctly. An immobilized Bomb could
not explode on its own accord, but an Imitator (Mirror) could detonate it,
so long as it was not immobilized too. The 9x9 version - with a Bomb -
used to be called Renaissance. I think the history of the 'Bomb'
variation to Baroque was a matter of interference from the 1960s game of
'Camelot.' Blowing up both Kings resulted in a Draw. Anyway, like
Baroque, Renaissance ended with the capture of the enemy's King.
<p>Regards,
<p>Matthew Montchalin
<br>[email protected]
In contrast to the Carrera family, which have less differentiation, Ultima-like games are more sharply delineated in their features, metaphorically like USA Colorado's 54 'fourteeners', not somewhat similar hills of Carrera-Capablanca terrain. I would much rather have invented the 'Rococo peak' within the Ultima family than the 'Gothic hill' in its family; yet that one stands out within its environment.
Robert Abbott now has a set of Ultima puzzles on his website! http://www.logicmazes.com/games/puz1to4.html
Well, in my fourth game against Chess V, the program beated me, playing in a good manner. I have not played bad, neither commited fatal errors or clear blunders. Analyzing the game, I have played different than in my previous three games, with a relatively open position. It seems that Chess V plays well this kind of instances.
Three tests more, Zillions playing White, Chess V playing Black, 10 seconds per move. Results: Chess V won 3-0 !. Chess V is still relatively weak playing against humans, but it is definitely stronger than Zillions. I have detected an important bug, as I said, that must be corrected inmediately: When Chess V King is immobilized, it appears that if you can capture it, the prgogram does not detect it is Checkmated, you capture the King and the game cam continue endless. Now I think that 50% of penalty for immobilized pieces is perhaps too much, but I suggest augment it a bit, 30%, but if your immobilizer is immobilized, the value of your immobilizer must fall at least to half. There must be an important penalty for an immobilized King, much more if the immobilizer is potentially safe, Chess V takes not a good care with its King sometimes against the enemy immobilizer. I´ll add more when I have more to add.
Comment on the game: ChessV vs. Zillions, 30 sec. per player per move. Opening was weakly played by both programs, and you can observe the that the Pawn movements are not the best in both. The game play was more tactical than positional, the pair King-Coordinator is not used in the best way, and Immobilizer potential-and-risks is not well appreciated. But Chess V 'understood' better the game philosophy, and the end was played relatively good by Chess V, although with clear deficiences by Zillions. Very interesting test game!.
Chess V, playing White, beated Zillions, 30sec. per player, in this ULTIMA test game: Zillions Save Game File Version 0.02 HC RulesFile=C:\Archivos de programa\Zillions Development\Zillions Demo\Rules\Ultima.zrf VariantName=Ultima 1. Pawn g2 - g5 1. Pawn a7 - a6 2. Pawn b2 - b5 2. Pawn f7 - f3 3. Pawn h2 - h4 3. Pawn c7 - c4 4. Pawn h4 - f4 x f3 4. Long-Leaper b8 - h2 x f4 5. Pawn c2 - c3 5. Long-Leaper h2 - e5 6. Pawn f2 - f5 6. Long-Leaper e5 - a5 x b5 7. Long-Leaper b1 - b3 7. Coordinator a8 - a7 8. Coordinator h1 - h2 8. Withdrawer d8 - c7 9. Withdrawer e1 - g3 9. Coordinator a7 - f2 x e2 10. Withdrawer g3 - h4 x f2 10. Pawn c4 - e4 11. King d1 - e1 11. Pawn e4 - a4 12. Long-Leaper g1 - g3 12. Pawn d7 - d6 13. Coordinator h2 - f2 13. Withdrawer c7 - c5 14. Withdrawer h4 - b4 14. Pawn a4 - a3 15. Long-Leaper g3 - e3 15. Pawn d6 - d4 16. Withdrawer b4 - a4 16. Long-Leaper a5 - b6 17. Withdrawer a4 - b4 17. Long-Leaper b6 - c7 18. Long-Leaper e3 - e6 18. Chameleon f8 - f7 19. Long-Leaper e6 - e4 19. Withdrawer c5 - d6 x b4 20. Pawn c3 - c4 x d4 20. Pawn b7 - a7 21. Pawn c4 - a4 x a3 21. Long-Leaper c7 - a5 22. Coordinator f2 - c5 22. Long-Leaper a5 - a3 x a4 23. Coordinator c5 - c3 23. Pawn a7 - c7 24. Pawn f5 - a5 24. Long-Leaper a3 - c5 25. Chameleon f1 - f5 25. Long-Leaper c5 - a7 26. Chameleon f5 - e5 26. Chameleon f7 - f2 27. King e1 - d1 27. Withdrawer d6 - c5 28. Pawn d2 - d5 28. Long-Leaper a7 - b8 29. Pawn a5 - b5 x c5 29. Long-Leaper b8 - b2 x b3 x b5 30. King d1 - c2 30. Pawn h7 - h5 31. Coordinator c3 - f3 x f2 31. Chameleon c8 - f5 32. Long-Leaper e4 - g6 x f5 32. Immobilizer h8 - h6 33. Chameleon e5 - f6 33. Pawn e7 - e5 34. Coordinator f3 - f5 34. Pawn c7 - c5 x d5 35. King c2 x b2 35. Long-Leaper g8 - c4 36. Pawn a2 - a3 36. Pawn h5 - h3 37. Chameleon c1 - b1 37. Pawn h3 - d3 38. Chameleon b1 - d1 38. King e8 - d7 39. King b2 - b1 39. Long-Leaper c4 - a4 40. King b1 - a2 40. Long-Leaper a4 - f4 41. Chameleon d1 - a4 41. Long-Leaper f4 - f3 42. Immobilizer a1 - d1 42. Long-Leaper f3 - h5 43. Immobilizer d1 - g4 43. Pawn a6 - a7 44. Chameleon a4 - f4 44. Pawn a7 - a8 45. Chameleon f4 - e3 45. Pawn d3 - d1 46. Chameleon e3 - d4 46. Pawn e5 - e3 47. King a2 - b3 47. Pawn c5 - e5 48. Coordinator f5 - e4 x e3 48. Pawn e5 - f5 x g5 49. Chameleon f6 - f7 49. Pawn a8 - a6 50. Coordinator e4 - e6 50. Pawn g7 - g8 51. King b3 - b4 51. Immobilizer h6 - g5 52. King b4 - c5 52. Pawn g8 - g7 x g6 53. Coordinator e6 - g6 x g5 53. Pawn d1 - d2 54. Coordinator g6 - h6 x h5 54. Pawn d2 - a2 55. Chameleon d4 - d6 55. King d7 - d8 56. Chameleon d6 - e7 56. Pawn a6 - a4 x a3 57. Chameleon e7 x d8
CHESS V BEATED ZILLIONS!. Well, Zillions is a weak ULTIMA player, and I have had curiosity in a test game with the two programs. The game have had not great quality, but it was clear that CHESS V played with much more concept, and it won in a good final. CHESS V game play should be improved, but it was a great thing that Zillions was beated. Congratulations, Greg!. To all the interested people, I can send the saved Zillions file.
Greg Strong wrote on Sun, Oct 3, 2004 11:00 PM UTC:The bugs you metion would a dramatic effect on play skill, even with a good evaluation function. I'll have to take care of those, and post an update ... Thanks for the test-report!
Greg, I have tested three ULTIMA games using Chess V. Good effort!, I appreciate it a lot, but I have some observations. First, you can take the enemy King and the game continues without end. It happened with immobilized Kings in the three games, so I have not seen if it happens in other cases. The second observation is about the A.I. game play, it is possible that you have noted that Chess V is a weak ULTIMA player, (much more than I thought at first, surprisingly to me) and I noted a strong ingenuity with the Immobilizer power, perhaps you must augment the penalty for immobilized pieces to 50%, but it is necessary that the A.I. take also in account situations in wich the immobilizer is immobilized with a Chameleon and then be vulnerable in the future. I could capture the enemy immobilizer in this way twice. Kings can act in a better way in Coordination with the Coordinator, it is necessary augment the bonus in the position evaluation when there are more enemy pieces in line with the King after a King move. Pawn movement is ingenuous too, but it is not easy a solution, perhaps the best should be a good bonus in the position evaluation (not in the piece) for a movement that reduces the brut mobility of enemy pieces (number of squares the pieces can reach), and other bonus in the evaluation function (a bit less than the other) for a Pawn move that augments the number of potential capturing squares using the pawn moved, i.e., looking how many sandwiches can make the Pawn with own pieces, although there is or not an enemy piece between (covering potential). I know it is not easy improve a lot this game, but it should be good a revision. I´m very sorry I can´t help a lot with the code, but I´ll try to help you as I can.
Greg Strong wrote on Sun, Oct 3, 2004 07:11 PM UTC:Since you all provided so much input into evaluation, I thought you might be interested in the various terms I used in the Ultima evaluation function for ChessV... I used George Duke's piece values of Pawn = 1000, Withdrawer = 3100, Coordinator = 2900, Chameleon = 4300, Long Leaper = 5300, and Immobilizer = 8200. All immobilized pieces are penalized -25% of their value. The Withdrawer gets a small bonus proportional to the value of the most valuable adjacent enemy piece (provided there is at least 1 square in the opposite direction for it to move into, although it need not be vacant presently.) The Coordinator gets a small bonus proportional to the number of enemy pieces on the same rank or file as the friendly King. The Chameleon gets a couple small bonuses: for standing adjacent to an enemy Withdrawer (if there is at least 1 square in the opposite direction to move into), and when the enemy coordinator is on the same rank or file as the friendly King. The Immobilizer gets no bonuses, instead immobilized pieces are penalized. The Long Leaper also has no bonuses, but only because I have no good answers here. Roberto correctly points out that the Long Leaper is more valuable if the enemy pieces are not clustered, and not on the edge, but I cannot think of a way to determine that without spending far too much CPU time. I will continue to think about it. Also, in the opening, pieces are given a bonus for the first move (development), a small penalty for moving twice, and a large penalty for moving the same piece three or more times. These adjustments are slowly scaled down as the game progresses into the middle-game.
I have not published Positional Advantage Equation, taking Mark Thompson's advice to write an article. Move Equation is M = 3.5N/P(1-G). I don't know where they index special topics; you see it scrolling back any of the talkers.
Try this link. It was a little awkward to find: http://www.chessvariants.com/index/listcomments.php?subjectid=Game+Design
Greg Strong wrote on Sat, Aug 7, 2004 07:25 PM UTC:<p>Dear Mr. Duke,</p>
<p>In your recent comments, you mention a Positional Advantage Equation, the details of which may be found under the Game Design topic. I am interested in <i>anything</i> related to mathetmatical analysis of positions, but I cannot find this Game Design forum...</p>
<p>Sincerely,<br>
Greg Strong</p>
Achernar?. Yes, George, I coincide with you, any basic program plays this game as bad as me or any other not very experienced player, this is a very complex game in which I have medited in the last times, it is nice, but I´m convinced it needs some important reforms, because I don´t want this game for people that have to spend years training with it, I want the game for happy people that wants have fun once in a while trying it. I´ll work on it in the next future.
Why Zillions plays well Deneb?. I´m not sure, but I think one of the reasons is because in the ends are many 'royal' pieces, and the program can visualize in a good manner complex tactics in which more than one 'royal' piece is attacked after some moves, but the characteristics of the game may also help. No, I don´t think so any basic program can play this game well, Zillions A.I. seems to be, coincidentially, well adapted to this game.
One of the problems with the game play level of some Zillions files is just that you don´t have tools for adjust evaluations, adding or substracting points based on positions/ conditions, probably, the program does that, but it is a closed evaluation made by a general-purpose game program, and it is a black box for the programmer. Zillions plays some games better than others, and it is not easy seeing why. By example, Zillions plays Grand-Chess clearly better than Eurasian, and Shogi original ZRF plays like a novice (Fergus improved a lot the Shogi game play using Zillions, but he have had to tune some values and drops, and it was not easy). I expect the next version of Zillions can add new tools to help the programmer work, it is a need for some games implementation, like Amazons and others. The idea is not a Deep Blue, I don´t like extremely strong computer opponents because it can cause some frustration many times, but if you want play a particular game, at least you expect it can offer a good challange. ChessV is fine, it plays really well the most of the variants, but it is not unbeatable. For me, it is an excellent challenger, regardless I have to lose not so few games, I can draw sometimes and once in a while I can beat it!.
Of course I posted anonymously about sliding values based on things objective, i.e. especially Captures and Number of Moves, just standard programming. More mathematically, to go with Move Equation under Game Design topic, I also developed a Positional Advantage Equation. It measures a game from its rules for positional advantage potential. [Achernar], being Orthodox Chess with interesting but bizarre rules overlaid, would expect any basic program to play well.[I switched Achernar and Deneb, sorry]
I have mentioned some basic conditions that can add or substract points in evaluation of positions, and sliding values of pieces based on positions and conditions may be important in this game, if you want a very strong program. How can slide these values up or down?. You can begin using gross estimators of adds and substracts based on the stablished conditions/positions, and then the values can be tunned by essay-and-error, running a few game tests (I´ll be happy offering part of my time doing it). Deep Blue?, I don´t think so, but it is possible the construction of a REALLY strong Ultima player, expert level, if CHESS-V supports sliding values of pieces and global evaluations based on positions/conditions. How good can be?. At least, it should be easy the construction of a program that can beat Zillions without difficulty (Zillions plays some variants superb, -if you don´t think so, try one of my games, DENEB-, and others very poorly, if you don´t think so, make the attempt of implementing Amazons... Zillions ULTIMA or ROCOCO level of play is not that of a novice, but I can say is not very strong playing these games, although it plays MAXIMA and FUGUE clearly better, in my game MAXIMA the piece values were artificially adjusted, but I´m not sure about all the reasons)
Greg Strong wrote on Thu, Aug 5, 2004 12:14 AM UTC:<p>Thank you. This information is most helpful!</p>
<p>The previous anonymous poster does make a point about sliding piece values, and ChessV already supports this. In Orthodox Chess, for example, I evaluate the Rook starting with the Speilmann value of 4500 (relative to a 1000-point pawn.) The value then is scaled up by 50 points for each capture of any piece, starting with the 10th. So, when the board is down to only 12 pieces, for example, the rook is then evaluated at 5000. I don't know how much this applies to Ultima, but since the previous poster brought it up, I thought I would mention it.</p>
I doubt whether all those contingencies of position will be worked into a program, unless someone wants to buy another Deep Blue. Instead, it just goes 3-, 4-,5-ply, whatever, based on set of values, as I remember games programs. Those values are somewhat compromises and estimates, also for what move it is, 10th, 20th, 30th. In Falcon Chess, Falcon starts at 7 points, and falls below Rook's 5 by the time there are fewer than 10 pieces/pawns. It is important to normalize, if possible, Pawn to 1 for a values table, like in my Design Analyses, even if, like a Cannon Pawn, it is 1.5, or 1.8, if actually matched with standard P; all values are relative.
Those values are close to the subjective values I have stimated, although evaluation of positions in Ultima is more complex. Immobilized pieces values are significatively reduced, but it depends also on the vulnerability of the Immobilizer that is freezing the pieces, and in the fact that the Immobilizer is also immobilized or not, or it CAN be threatened to be immobilized. Pince-Pawn values strongly depends on the whole set of the own Pincers and other pieces, if there are more squares where Pincers can take enemies after hypothetic moves, higher is the Pincer value, and in some situations the value of a Pincer can be as high as the value of some major pieces, if the mobility of enemy pieces is reduced enough. Ultima tendence is to be a very defensive game, so this must be considered in the evaluation of positions. Long-Leaper value is high if the position is sparse, without many clusters of pieces, but it is low if there are massive clusters and/or the enemy pieces are positioned on squares of the edges, usually Long-Leaper value is high when Pincer values are high. Coordinator value depend strongly on the position of the King, if there are many enemy pieces on the orthogonals of the King, the Coordinator value increases a lot, regardless the imminence of a capture. Chameleon value increases if the Chameleon can attack positions where enemy pieces can go if that can hurt a lot after the hypothetic move, also if Chameleon can Immobilize the Immobilizer, and this value can be increase or decrease depending on the vulnerability of Chameleon. The Chameleon value is high if he can threaten the enemy King safely. This is a game not very easy for position evaluations, but I can suggest that good defensive moves must add something, and risky moves that allows counter-attacks or augment the enemy mobility must substract points.
In April 2004 comment this same page I estimate those Ultima values in Design analysis: P1, K2, W3, Co3, Ca4, L5, I8, keeping integers. I haven't done C++ programming this decade, so don't know whether King's offensive value would be needed, depending on structure of program. Refining these estimates, maybe L closer to 5.5, and W>Co. [Further, I would enter P1, W3.1, Co2.9, Ca4.3, L5.3, I8.2, and see how that plays]
Answers: 1. can a king take by co-ordinating with the co-ordinator, or does it have to be after the co-ordinator's moves? No, King only captures by replacement. Co-ordinate capture is performed by the Coordinator, or by a Chameleon to capture an enemy Coordinator. King can´t do that. 2. i assume that a king cannot move into check, and you have to tell your opponent if they do? i was playing against the applet linked off this page, and you have to actually capture the king rather than checkmate it. which is it? Oficially, you can´t move into check. The object of the game is checkmate the enemy King. Zillions implementation adopts the 'capture-the-King' rule for technical reasons, the main reason is because if you immobilize the King and you use the checkmate rule, it is interpreted by Zillions as a Check, and it is not. 3. if white's co-ordinator is on f1, white's king on b1, and black's king moves onto say b7 from the c file... if the white co-ordinator has a clear run to f7, is black's move therefore illegal? Yes, this move is illegal, you are moving into check.
a couple more questions. 1. can a king take by co-ordinating with the co-ordinator, or does it have to be after the co-ordinator's moves? 2. i assume that a king cannot move into check, and you have to tell your opponent if they do? i was playing against the applet linked off this page, and you have to actually capture the king rather than checkmate it. which is it? if white's co-ordinator is on f1, white's king on b1, and black's king moves onto say b7 from the c file... if the white co-ordinator has a clear run to f7, is black's move therefore illegal?
You can play this game using the Game Courier System, inviting someone (open or direceted) or accepting invitations. The first thing you have to do is register as user. Click on 'PLAY!' (main page of 'What´s New'), Click then on 'Game Courier System' and follow clicking on 'Register', It is free!. About the way you play the game, it is not adjusted to official rules. Certainly, you are an atipical ULTIMA player, usually this kind people is particularily resistant to changes in the game, and it is played preferently with the original rules. One 'improvement' of the inventor was rejected by the fans, and new 'improvements' to the original game are not usually very welcome, aparently.
Is there anywhere to play the game online, other than against applets?
I love the game, although when I used to play it the pawns moved one step orthoganally, could not be captured, and had still the (in that case) fairly unused ability to capture in a pincer fashion, one piece at a time.
They mostly just got in the way. Civilian pedestrians, as it were.
Ultima design analysis: # squares: 64 # piece types: 7 Piece-type density: 10.9% Initial piece density: 50% Power density: 84/64 = 1.31 Long diagonal: a1-h8 Est. piece values: P1, K2, W3, Co 3, Ca 4, L 5, I 8 Exchange Gradient: G = 0.505; (1-G)=0.495 Ave. Game Length: M = 3.5(Z)(T)/(P)(1-G) = (3.5*64*0.109)/(1.31*0.495) = 38 Moves Features: Unusual Pawns (pincer) may cohere with the chosen piece mix Comments: Prosaic values across the board confound evaluation.
carlos, the answers to your questions are: <P>
1) no <BR>
2) yes <P>
thanks for the swift replies. that is how i initially thought the withdrawers must operate. but when playing my game of ultima in the tournament, i got in a position to take in this (diagonal) manner, but typed in my move and the piece remained on the board. so i changed my move. until i saw ben's next move, i did not realise that i had to manually (as it were) remove the piece from the board myself with a separate command. never mind! thanks again for the clarification.
1. No, a Pincer Pawn can capture up to three pieces in different orthogonal directions, but it cannot capture two pieces in a row. 2. Yes, a Withdrawer can capture by withdrawing diagonally, a Long Leaper by jumping diagonally, an Immobilizer paralyzes diagonally and though a Coordinator captures in an orthogonal way, it may be through a diagonal move (say King on d1, Coordinator moving from h1 to b6 captures enemy pieces at b1 and d6).
i have two questions about rules i am not completely certain on. 1/ can a pincer pawn capture more than one piece (in one direction)? e.g. if there is a friendly piece on f4, and enemy pieces on f2 and f3, can a pawn move to f1 and capture both? i think this is unlikely, but i want to check. 2/ can withdrawers capture by moving away on the diagonal from an enemy piece? e.g. enemy on g5, can a withdrawer capture it by moving from f4 to e3? thanks.
I dug out my copy of 'Abbott's New Card Games' (1963, Funk and Wagnalls) and the suicide rule is stated thus: 'A piece that is immobilized does have one special move that it can make, that of suicide. A player may use a turn to remove from the board one of his own pieces that is immobilized.'
I don´t know if it is written somewhere, but I have seen that the practice answer in yes, an Immobilizer immobilized by Chameleon can commit suicide. This rule is also understood in Rococo and Maxima, and it is also implemented in this way in the Zillions versions of these games. Some people enjoys Ultima and some of its variants, as some people likes FIDE-Chess and some its variants. Why not?
A point I've never seen in the rules for Ultima or Rococo: can an Immobilizer immobilized by a Chameleon commit suicide? Logic suggests yes.
Ultima is the best, nobody needs Ultima variants!.
I had been looking for the rules of Ultima for the longest time. It is heartening to see it included here. I also feel that the rule description format is excellent.
Roberto,
<p>
I'm not surprised that the FIDE Queen seems very powerful in Ultima -- all of the alternate forms of capture used in Ultima are weaker than replacement. Also, with a lack of other pieces capturing by replacement, guarding pieces isn't as easy as in FIDE Chess.
<p>
The Bird is almost certainly too powerful, but one of the pleasures of experimenting is to try such pieces and see what they tell you about the game and those forms of capture.
Michael, I think the Leo is a good idea, but it is the need of diminish a little its power in this game. Unfortunatelly, Leo can conduct many stages of the openings with attack of pieces and checkmate threats, with an initial advantage for White. On possibility is that it moves like Queen, but limiting its action: it need an ADJACENT intervening piece for attack the next positions. I´ll try both of them in the next days. As it can be easely noted when you try the variant, FIDE-Queen is very powerful in Ultima, surprisingly it looks much more powerful here than in FIDE-Chess, and it is certainly more powerful than the Long-Leaper. Advancer is a little weaker, but LEO would be at least as powerful than the Queen. Peter: I have dowloaded the Rococo variants. I have not tried it yet, but I have the intuitive idea that the Archer is great for this game, but I have serious doubts about the Bird. Other thing: I have my own Gallactic Graphics and board for Rococo. I´ll send a copy to David and you, although Alfaerie are very nice too.
ULTIMATUM, an ULTIMA variant. The proposal is simple: One Chameleon, one Long-Leaper. Add a FIDE-Queen and an Advancer per band. The suggested initial setup is s follows: (White): Immobilizer in a1, Withdrawer, Long-Leaper, King, Queen, Chameleon, Advancer and Coordinator, respectively in b1, c1,...,h1. For Black mirrored arrays, with Coordinator in a8, Advancer in b8, Chameleon in c8, followed by Queen, King, Long-Leaper, Withdrawer and Immobilizer. I doubt about the suicide rule, it would be not as good in this variant as in Ultima. The game play of this variant is very dynamic, but essence of ULTIMA is preserved, and it seems to be more inclined to attack than defense, at least while the new pieces are on the board. Game play in the edges is less effective, due the Queens and Advancers, and Immobilizer is more vulnerable. BETA-TESTERS NEEDED: If you want to test the variant, I can send to you a ZRF BETA, for tests purposes now (it has to be refined a little yet, but it is perfectly functional). If you are interested, e-Mail me. My adress: [email protected] , and I´ll send to you the compressed file.
George Moralidis wrote on Fri, Feb 13, 2004 05:06 AM UTC:Can you be a bit more specific? Where exactly would you place the Advancer and where would the Queen be placed? Would the Advancer change anyhow? You could make your suggestions to Ultima's creator himself at this page: http://www.logicmazes.com/games/ultima.html
100 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.
If you mean computer programs that can play it, there are two options I know of. Zillions-of-Games can play it. Also, an older version of ChessV can do it. I rewrote the program from scratch and the new version doesn't support Ultima yet, but you can download version 0.95 here (scroll to the bottom.)