[ 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 Beastmaster Chess. Large chess variant with a fantasy theme, emphasizing leaping pieces. (8x11, Cells: 84) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]arrangeCVs wrote on 2011-02-04 UTCThere is a connection, Overby is perfectly knowledgeable of, between Beastmaster and each of the four moralities the very same year 2002. Showing just one of them, the intended link, http://www.chessvariants.org/fiction.dir/poems/falconpoem8.html, here starts precisely with mathematician Omar Khayyam's ''...shapes that come and go,'' and this Beastmaster concludes ''The beasts come and go....'' No coincidence at all, just simple everyday awareness. If only thinking syllogistically, someone misses, oh, 90% of reality. Free association uncovers cvs distant by time/space, and rigour can then test their likenesses, as well as likeliness of mis-appropriation with or without intent. _________________ Categorically, Betza never dealt with any leapers beyond Camel and Zebra. Betza has only 3 or 4 articles that even permit greater than size 8x8 conducive to the Ibis and Flamingo 1,6 and Stork 2,7 p-t set. Of course Beastmaster's longest leap-length is that of Wyvern(1,5 ibis component). Other some long leapers by year 2002 are integrated into Camblan, Bach Dang, Squarcle, Europan, Gannymede, IO, Microorganism, Strange Chess, Typhoon among others. Ramayana is also 2002 with several long leapers. Since those are all familiar, it establishes that longer leapers were very rare indeed before the end of 2002 and fully worthwhile to try again in ximeracak. and Beastmaster 9 years ago. After Betza vanished in 2003 and right after these two concept cvs of Overby, the era of vanity cvs tended to set in and over-proliferation without research become ''whole hog'' -- simply using the ''beastmaster'' image itself undisparagingly. In the same vein to the next degree, for the many, 'Take the bull by the horns' or 'bull in a china shop' become irresponsible metaphor in over-design of chess set-ups no one can possibly track any more. _________________ /// For follow-up, more 'Overby cvs' to study from the bygone classical cv era are how Abecedarian compares to Betza's Buypoint; three-player Orwell to those by authors like Zubrin; and whether Meiriqi was first to blend xiangqi, f.i.d.e. and shogi. Also leading to possible next topic, is that even old Cylindrical Chess pieces can actually be considered as having a long-range leap either (1,6) or (0,6) or (2,7) whenever the mover chances to leave either side file. arrangeCVs wrote on 2011-02-03 UTCCorrection: Overby's ximeracak. (with the required period) has all pawns array-guarded. Beastmaster board here is 9x6, right? Just add 4 complete Morley corridors invented 1947; or call it instead the obvious 11x8 with the 4 corners removed. Glenn followed ximeracak. immediately with Beastmaster, his best two cvs. This 84-square one easily accomodates not only (1,4) but even (1,5), who is either Ibis or Zemel. Claudio and Charles call (2,4) Charolais in earnest, but I prefer deriving from Betza Funny notation just plain 'NN2' for the same '(2,4)', and there is nothing to remember. Wyvern footprint drawn is three-legged in (Ibis + Charolais + Tripper). Both these cvs of Overby the same month 2002 have only leapers except Pawns. If drawing a diagram like in ximeracak., shown would be that all of Wyvern, Pegasus, Roc, and Knight go to mutually exclusive squares, for the integrating cv concept of Beastmaster. Unlike other concept games, this one transposes readily to implementation, a good sign. Only Pegasus and Horse are the same in both Beastmaster and 64-square ximeracak, and they remain quite different variants. Of those 4 Beastmaster types above, Wyvern, Peg., Roc, N, only Roc triangulates. None of the 4 has any pair of components that are strict Gilman compound of duals, even that Roc. Rather, the Roc does triagulate because of happening to have a right second radial leg; that is, Roc's being Camel plus Dabbabah allows something like 'f4-h6-e7-f4'-- a triangulator but not a compound of duals. Neither do these 4 of Wyvern-Peg.-Roc-N correspond to the types in ''Passed pawns, scorpions and dragons,'' which differently also fill in the entire surrounding space from departure square without any overlap of reach. The three cases, Overby, Gilman, and Duke are three different methods of arranging squares mutually exclusive from a starting square, though Gilman's have not been fully developed that way in any cv. Use of superimposed Omega compounds in ximeracak. makes still a fourth way mathematically to get agreeable aesthetic mutual motive exclusivity. In Overby's Beastmaster methodology, Roc and Wyvern remain colourbound. Another fifth piece-type here, Lion, overlaps Roc a tad, Overby is finding necessary; and Lion does seem to work fine to bridge the leapers four with the regular Pawns one-type. When fewer cvs were made, Overby does not even have to mention ximeracak. in the present article, everybody understanding at once what Beastmaster was about with ximeracak. still fresh in mind. The end of the text concludes 'The beasts come and go; the tribes endure'. George Duke wrote on 2009-06-20 UTCWyvern is 3,3 Tripper + 4,2 (-Nightrider) + 5,1 Zemel. No two legs triangulate. Pegasus is 4,1 Giraffe plus 3,2 Zebra. Roc is Alfil plus Camel. The corner squares are blotched out because the contest was for 84 squares. Christine Bagley-Jones wrote on 2006-02-08 UTCdon't know, cause the inventor didn't use them in the game he made. those pieces you mention are not in many games, but, da da, you should check out my game 'sky', it has 0-3, 0-4, 4-4, 0-5 (technically, fiveleaper also has a 4-3 leap, something to do with maths or whathavenot) and 5-5 (root-fifty-leaper, also again, has 7-1 leap too). JCRuhf wrote on 2006-02-07 UTCI have noticed that this game has no pieces with a (0,3), (0,4), (0,5), (4,4) or (5,5) leap. Why????????????????????? David Paulowich wrote on 2005-12-25 UTCGood ★★★★It looks like the Pegasus can visit every square on the board, while the Roc and the Wyvern can visit every square of one color. The (Murray) Lion is limited to a quarter of the board - unless it captures on an adjacent square. George Duke wrote on 2005-01-26 UTCGood ★★★★Yet within the 'ABC's of 'Large CVs': Some games have to be judged by their unifying concept more than playability. It is a subtle distinction that needs to be made with the proliferation of forms because of computers. One example is 'Rolling Kings', a fine 'idea game'. Beastmaster Chess is centered around the plan of having all leaping pieces. That has only been tried a few times before: an instance is Cavalier Chess, though the latter is not a Large CV and has one non-leaper. Beastmaster extends the leaps up to five steps away in the 'Wyvern'. By 'leapers' we tend to mean 'oblique leapers'. Of dubious playability, Beastmaster is still a great notion. It does not go so far as to include any of Charles Gilman's Bemes(11,3), Soll(7,4), Albatross(9,2), Deacon(8,7), Stork(7,2) etc. of 'From Ungulates Outward'. 7 comments displayedLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ EarlierPermalink to the exact comments currently displayed.