[ 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 ⇩Latest ⇩Later ⇩Reverse Order⇧ Earlier Wildebeest Chess. Variant on an 10 by 11 board with extra jumping pieces. (11x10, Cells: 110) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]George Duke wrote on 2005-02-08 UTCGood ★★★★'WXYZ,LargeCV': Schmittberger discusses values of Camel and Zebra, the latter not used here. A board this size makes C and Z very close; three points are useful for each in most comparisons. A nice 'idea' game more than one of highest play-worthiness; and Camel not Z completes its thesis (See other Comments). Low piece density reminds one of 17th-C. Turkish Great Chesses, and Wildebeest plays similarly. 'Gnu' is preferred name now for 'Wildebeest'(N+C). Greg Strong wrote on 2004-10-26 UTCMark Thompson and I have just started a test of his proposed game; see Game Courier under the name 'Zebrabeest Chess'. I have never previously played any variant with a Zebra, so I'm finding a little difficult to visualize the zebra-moves - we'll see how quickly I get used to it. I'm certainly curious ... R. Wayne Schmittberg wrote on 2004-10-25 UTCI don't like the idea of replacing the camels with zebras, for two reasons. First, it removes the game's logical framework; e.g., camels are to knights as bishops are to rooks; and the two shortest leapers whose moves do not intersect the moves of the ranging pieces are used. Second, zebras are weaker than camels, and that's almost too weak. (The fact that camels are colorbound is pretty close to irrelevant in determining their value. This can be demonstrated by comparing rooks and bishops, in which the ratio of known values pretty much equals the difference in their total mobilities. Zebras cannot reach their maximum of eight squares from as many squares as camels can, and that's why they're weaker.) Mark Thompson wrote on 2004-10-25 UTCGood ★★★★The basic idea of the game is that, as there are two simple sliders (B, R) and one combination slider (B+R=Q), so in Wildebeest Chess there are also two simple jumpers (Knight = (1,2) jumper and Camel = (1,3) jumper), and one combined jumper (Wildebeest = N+C). I wonder how well the idea would work instead with Knights and Zebras ((2,3) jumpers), and a combination N+Z piece? There is the idea that, as one of the sliders is color-bound, so perhaps one of the jumpers ought to be also, hence the Camel. But it's not obvious to me that rule makes for the best game. I'd be interesting in knowing whether Wayne Schmittberger or anyone else has tried it. Actually, since the preset to enforce the rules has not been written for this game yet, it would be possible to try playing this way, simply entering Zebra moves for Camels and Knight/Zebra moves for the Wildebeest. Charles Gilman wrote on 2004-07-21 UTCThe problem with Salamantis' suggestion of using a 3:2 move is that it does not correspond to other moves in the way that those used in this variant do - see my comment from last March. If it is the short range on the moves on this size board that is the problem it may be worth trying out what might be called Zebu Chess - replacing the Knight, Camel, and Wildebeest with the Zebra (3:2 leaper), Zemel (5:1 leaper), and Zebu (Zebra+Zemel). Salamantis wrote on 2004-04-06 UTCI would like to see the presented Wildebeest moves replaced by the moves of what has been previously characterized as a Superknight; instead of 1 across and 2 up or down, or 1 up or down and 2 across, as in a regular Knight move, a Superknight moves 2 across and 3 up or down, or 2 up or down and 3 across (for instance, a Superknight at b1 would be able to move to, among other alternatives, d4 or e3). Charles Gilman wrote on 2004-03-22 UTCExcellent ★★★★★My Ecumenical Chess is now up, as is a variant of mine combining this game's theme and yet another, Bachelor Kamil (which couldn't be called Bachelor Wildebeest because that piece is not in its array although it may turn up through promotion). This excellent is by way of thanks. Charles Gilman wrote on 2003-05-25 UTCExcellent ★★★★★The second Excellent is for inspiring a further variant, which I term Ecumenical Chess, with every combination of two first-rank pieces. These include a Marshal (M=R+N), a Cardinal (D=B+N), a Canvasser (V=R+C), and for each colour square a Caliph (V=B+C) (the repetitive use of Ca- is intended for substituting Ze- and Gi- in corresponding combinations with the 3:2-5:1 and 4:1-5:3 leaper pairs, starting with Zemel and Gimel for the plain colourbound leapers). I envisage four versions: basic - 10r by 8f, CLVQKWLC, RNBDMBNR, PPPPPPPP; Pawnless - standard board, RBVQKMBR, NCLDWLCN; Uncommon - 4r by 8f, VQKM, LDWL; and Gross - 12 by 12, RNBCVQKWCBNR, RNBCLDMLCBNR, 12 Pawns. Pawnless and Uncommon are inspired by Half Chess (under small variants). Charles Gilman wrote on 2003-03-29 UTCExcellent ★★★★★It took me a while to realise what this game does. It adds the same pieces relative to the Knight as the standard game has relative to the Rook, befitting the Knight's similar antiquity. After all, a Camel move is simply a Knight move turned through 45° and multiplied by root 2, as a Bishop move is to a corresponding Rook move (consider the triangle b2-a3-c4). Nor is it coincidence that the Camel is colourbound. Thus the Camels are to Bishops, and the Wildebeest to a Queen, as the Knights are to Rooks. Jared wrote on 2002-04-23 UTCGood ★★★★Hey, I can't edit my own comments!! Oh well... stop sending me information please!! I have already gotten two replies. As for the game itself, I personally do not prefer CVs where non-pawns start next to other identical pieces, like the bishops and camels. Therefore I propose a variant where each player has the option of switching a camel with the bishop on the same color, sort of like the switch rule of Changgi. Jared wrote on 2002-04-19 UTCGood ★★★★Hey, how do you nominate a game for those anyway? Email me at [email protected] Nuno Cruz wrote on 2002-04-17 UTCExcellent ★★★★★This game is really something! To me the best large variant of chess! WHY is it not a recongnized variant yet???? :-) Glenn Overby II wrote on 2002-04-08 UTCExcellent ★★★★★I recently sent in a nomination to make this game--a well-established, widely-disseminated, thoroughly-played design--a 'recognized' variant. If you agree, send the editors an email. :) 13 comments displayed⇩Latest ⇩Later ⇩Reverse Order⇧ EarlierPermalink to the exact comments currently displayed.