Ratings & Comments

Follow the Edit Content link and click on the Delete Item button.

To Kevin Pacey: Your comment that if you used a lone Champion+King it was possible to force mate against a lone King on a "normal" type of Chess board (that is, if the four corner "bolthole" squares were eliminated) sounded wrong to me, so I added that piece to one of the Chess engines I've written and had it compute the endgame database for that piece combination, and sure enough there are only a handful of positions for which a single Champion can force mate, whether on any size of rectangular Chess board or on an Omega Chess board. On the other hand, two Champions can easily force mate either on a rectangular Chess board of any size or on an Omega Chess board. I think you misunderstood Muller's comment - the one I saw says that a WD (or WAD) piece can mate, but doesn't say that this is forced in the typical case.

A word on my qualifications: I am a USCF Expert in standard FIDE Chess as well as the author or co-author of several computer Chess programs including the "Duchess" program that was the runner-up in the World Computer Chess Championships.

(Duniho, how do I properly delete this page?)

I've published this page now. Unfortunately, I could not figure out how to properly delete the other page (I'm the fresh hire among the editors), but I did manage to remove the link from What's New and search results.

I proposed using a drop move to place the Joker on the board, because in your code, you were adjusting what is allowed before and after moving the Joker. If the Joker's entry to the board is a drop move, you can permanently allow drop moves on the second move, and once the Joker has moved to the board, the player will simply have no more drop moves available. There will be no need to ban drop moves, because the player will have no more legal drop moves after the first and only one that is allowed.

Ok, thanks for your help. Yes, Benko-Fischer Chess is more important one for me. And you can clarify that you are the co-author of Half-Random Transcendental Chess.

The way I see it, once the user makes the regular move of the virgin piece (the ones allowed to vacate the spot for the joker), the user is then asked if he/she wants the joker to be inserted. I'm thinking that continuemove may be used here.

If a drop is to be used, the joker then starts in the hand I assume, where it is displayed, like in shogi. But there is still the problem of when to insert!

There are two ways of getting the value of a variable. One is to prepend the variable name with the # symbol. This works by replacing the #var_name with its value during preprocessing. This is useful for commands that do not provide any evaluation of expressions. It can be used on any line, regardless of the command.

The other way works only in expressions, and it is to precede the variable name with the keyword var. In some instances, it doesn't matter which you use. But in function definitions it does. Consider these lines of code:

def test1 join "a" #v;
def test2 join "b" var v;
print fn test1;
print fn test2;
set v x;
def test3 join "c" #v;
print fn test1;
print fn test2;
print fn test3;
set v y;
print fn test1;
print fn test2;
print fn test3;

Here is their output:

a#v

b

a#v

bx

cx

a#v

by

cx

As you can tell from examining the output, the method of prepending a variable name with # works only when a function is defined, and it will insert the current value of that variable into the function definition without enabling the function to use the most recent value of the variable on subsequent function calls. But the var keyword will always retrieve the current value of the variable everytime the function is called. For this reason, it is important to use the var keyword in function definitions whenever there is any chance that its value may change. The preprocessing method of retrieving variable values may be used in a function definition only for variables that have already been set and will not change.

The same should apply to prepending constant names with @ or prepending system variables with $. You're probably okay prepending a constant name with @, because its value is not supposed to change. Some system variables change regularly, and some do not. For those that do change, it is better to use the system keyword to retrieve their value in function definitions.

In looking for the link to Full Tamerlane Chess, I found that title belongs to a game by Greg Myers, but his game is currently hidden, because it still needs some work. This leads me to think that maybe you were not referring to his game. Were you referring to Greg Myers's Full Tamerlane Chess, to Tamerlane Chess, or to some other game?

: I didnt refer him. I found 'Full tamerlane chess' on the other site.

Regarding the piece descriptions, "move" can be a bit of a vague term. In the description of the Elephant, it's unclear whether the piece moves as a Bishop up to two spaces or can leap one or two spaces diagonally. I consulted Tamerlane Chess in case it used the same Elephant, but it does not. Its Elephant can leap two spaces but cannot move one space. The same goes for the Dabbaba.

: The elephant and Dabbaba are stemed from Tamerlane chess, but i added some move to them and other pieces.

While the Camel is normally a leaper, your description of it suggest that it might not be. The Templar sounds like it might be the Horse from Chinese and Korean Chess. In general, you need to make a clear distinction between true leapers, which may go directly to a space despite obstacles, and lame leapers, which must pass over certain spaces to reach their destination.

: In Citadelir chess, the Camel is also a leaper.

: The Templar moves 1 square orthogonally and then 1 squares diagonally and it can capture a piece with this move. and the Templar can also moves 1 square orthogonally and then 2 squares diagonally but it cannot capture a piece with this move.

It works!... I'm so happy!...

In looking for the link to Full Tamerlane Chess, I found that title belongs to a game by Greg Myers, but his game is currently hidden, because it still needs some work. This leads me to think that maybe you were not referring to his game. Were you referring to Greg Myers's Full Tamerlane Chess, to Tamerlane Chess, or to some other game?

Regarding the piece descriptions, "move" can be a bit of a vague term. In the description of the Elephant, it's unclear whether the piece moves as a Bishop up to two spaces or can leap one or two spaces diagonally. I consulted Tamerlane Chess in case it used the same Elephant, but it does not. Its Elephant can leap two spaces but cannot move one space. The same goes for the Dabbaba.

While the Camel is normally a leaper, your description of it suggest that it might not be. The Templar sounds like it might be the Horse from Chinese and Korean Chess. In general, you need to make a clear distinction between true leapers, which may go directly to a space despite obstacles, and lame leapers, which must pass over certain spaces to reach their destination.

I'm starting to rewrite this in clearer English. I have this so far:

The board and piece setup are the same as in normal chess. But each player has two camps and can spin either one. Each camp is a 4x4 section of the board. White's camps are on the first four ranks, and Black's are on the last four. Each has a camp on files a through d and another on files e through h. Instead of making a regular move, a player may rotate the pieces in one camp 90 degrees clockwise or counterclockwise.

This covers everything up until this line:

The pawns only go to the last rank of enemy regardless of spin.

It's not clear to me how this works. An example where this rule applies may help to clarify it.

Regarding the last line:

The pawns are promoted when the opponent spin his camp and your pawn reaches at the last rank of enemy.

Who decides what pieces the pawns promote to? The player whose move placed them on the last rank, or the player who owns them?

Without seeing the game in which that is a move, I cannot tell what is going on.