Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

And of course, the big question: Why don't I have at least one Imitator piece in Unnecessarily Complicated Chess?

I need to go fix that.

I'm thinking that this is because there is not a lot of experience in games with jokers.

At least in my case that's very much the reason; in principle the dicussion is very interesting (especially since a game I've been thinking about would involve a closely‐related, if potentially even more powerful (though less apparently‐random) piece)

My impression is that jokers are a bit like Querquisites and Smess/Ivory‐Tower pieces, in that they depart substantially enough from normal Chess dynamics that they'd take a good bit of learning to handle. And in their particular case, the art of dealing with them is in part (principally?) the fact that they reduce the value of strong pieces, especially if well placed: you can't freely move the queen if there's a joker ready to copy its move while still being worth (on average, presumed — though of course this ‘chilling’ effect increases its value correspondingly to the powerful pieces on the board) less.

I'd be interested to see how Jokers handle in games with (a small number of) really powerful pieces. I'd almost predict that capturing the jokers to free the power pieces (with maybe some judicious moves by the latter in between either while the J is still hidden in the setup position, or to give check) would be an important middle‐game theme.

But in any case for now you're probably one of the people here with most experience with the J :‌)

I have feared them being game breaking. Otherwise said, it feels like having a random effect.

I've never had a problem with them and it's still unclear to me what that would look like.

@Aurelian: I found the Joker difficult to play on-line because you need to have in mind what was the last piece moved and that the Joker mimics. If you play several games in parallel and that a succesive move may happen in the next days, it is difficult. Maybe this is why this interesting piece lacks of popularity. It is probably different when played over a board and in a short time frame.

It seems people are not that interested in this topic. I'm thinking that this is because there is not a lot of experience in games with jokers.

Anyway after a intensive series of games played against the ID these days, I have concluded that on a 10x10 board at least things are ok. What bad thing that can happed is to lose connected pawns, because then the joker is not easily trapped by just moving a pawn. So one has to protect connected pawns, especially near the king, even from sacrifices. That is actually a strategic choice on part of the attacker. I think this is actually a good thing.

So my own verdict is that on a 10x10 board the joker works.

Is it a matter of skill or a matter or perceived randomness?

I would ask that same question about nightriders, but they seem popular anyway. If I'm understanding you, the problem with Jokers is that they're too easy to exchange favorably because they're much stronger at the start than the end. I would expect that to be less of a problem with a very large game, since both players would have more opportunities to use their jokers.

If you're using it in a different armies game, the most important thing would be to have a joker in every army. Do you have an interactive diagram to show an example of a game where this piece might not work?

I have read Eric Silverman's thoughts on powerful pieces now. Trouble with the joker is that it's value is very volatile. In the beginning it is very powerful though. One could argue that maneuvering him it is a matter of skill. This, actually is my conundrum: Is it a matter of skill or a matter or perceived randomness?

By larger boards I mean strictly larger than 8x8. Even in 10x10(where I have 13 piece types) handling the enemy joker is quite tricky. 12x12 could work, too. But larger boards would make games impossible to play if the joker is present. Just imagine Tenjiku shogi with one or God forbid more jokers.

As I have said in my previous comment I have a large palette of piece types represented. This makes things even more complicated.

It could also be that I worry too much, but who knows.

Have you read Eric Silverman's thoughts on poweful pieces? He suggests that it's good to have a few super pieces that dominate the game.

When you say "larger boards" it's not clear if you're talking about the later mentioned 10x10 CWDA or something else. 10x10 doesn't seem large, and you did use the Joker on 10x10 and 12x12 already. If you are talking about something truly larger than 12x12, the obvious way is to have the Joker start at the back and make sure the average piece strength isn't too high.

If you're worried about the Joker dominating the game by being too powerful, don't forget that if it's really that strong the players would be reluctant to trade it away. In that way, strong pieces can be self-balancing.

I could imagine it possibly being a problem if the Joker loses strength quickly so that there's a large advantage in deploying one's Joker first, which would naturally favor the first to move. If that is a problem, a way to counter it would be to carefully choose the moves of the other pieces. Perhaps have more sliding or other blockable moves instead of leaping moves, to allow for pawns to reveal attacks on the Joker by weaker pieces that could be exchanged for it. Another way is to make sure that pieces have simple moves so that a player would be likely to have good options that limit the Joker.

Forget about running the games on ChessV even without the Joker. ChessV does not do riders bent after the second step either. It seems y it is not supported.

This Thread is about games that contain the joker(imitator, jester, fool) piece. The joker piece is here a piece that does not have a move of it's own but borrows the last move of the opponent. It has no other abilities (unlike the one in omega chess), not even double pawn move, en passant or promotion, ability to castle etc. .

The main problem I am facing is that with increased number of piece types (which comes naturally on larger boards) it becomes increasingly powerful. I fear it becomes game breaking. I'm stuck in designing my new games as this piece is also difficult to program (more on this later). Each of the games I am designing has a heavy cavalry piece pair and a light cavalry piece (leapers- their exact abilities are not important now), a bishop pair, a rook pair, a war wagon (as I have renamed the well known falcon), a bent rider, a leaper+slider compound, a queen and of course the royal king. What I have observed by playing against the interactive diagram is that after some pawns and minors are exchanged the joker finds rather easily a central or near central position where it seems almighty. True that the opponent has a joker, too, but it is quite often when one joker paralyzes more pieces than the other. So to me it seems that the joker inserts in the game more a random thing than a good strategy reward. I have to mention that in orthodox chess I have a 1500 rating after the recent increase. Probably stronger players will feel differently. I though of having instead of one all imitating joker to have one that has it's power updated when the enemy moves a light piece and one that has it's power updated when the opponent moves a heavy piece. But this makes a game that already has a steep learning curve into something with an even greater learning curve. I'm writing this in hope for new opinions about including joker in increasingly large games.

On the programming side of things, games that have jokers are more difficult to program. And not because it's move power is difficult to program. I was able to go myself as far, but not further. It is a piece extremely difficult to evaluate. It has been proposed here to aproximate the piece value with the average strength of the enemy pieces. But this does not do it justice. The number of enemy piece types should play a role especially in games where there are many types of piece types like in those I'm designing as mentioned above (riders, leapers, pathers, leapers+riders, bent riders etc.). Moreover chessV does not accept a joker imitating a war wagon (falcon). Some I'm stock only with the interactive diagram which is a poorer AI. I know HG works on something cooler in C++ if I'm not mistaking but this could take many months maybe years.

More I'm thinking of a 10x10 CWDA with jokers. But imitating an opponent's move does not seem like CWDA to me. So I'd go for a transferrer that trasfers the move of a fibnif to a waffle for example. All of these are reasons for why I'm contemplating to take out the joker and replace it with a more normal piece.

But I have reserves to doing that also. First as I have said above I am a merely 1500 chess player. What if introducing the joker is brilliant but I just can't see it. What I find random it is actually strategic for a better player. A NNUE program for example. Also the joker is fun and it offers many tactical possibilities.

For now the best course of action seems to me to make simulations with ChessV without a joker, say jokerless varaints of the variant. That to find out the real piece values when the joker is not involved. An then when HG's more sofisticated program becomes available, try to look at games with joker (never jokers, as many jokers also make each joker more powerful) and see if having a joker makes the games more strategic and tactical, or it makes the game feel more random.