[ 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 Introducing Economy in CV's?. Several chess variants based on economic principles.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Rodrigo Zanotelli wrote on 2011-12-30 UTCExcellent ★★★★★another idea: 'Hasbro' Monopoly chess. 1.You can spend one turn without moving to buy some square. After this turn this square will be your square. 1.1-Your piece need to be on the square you will buy. 1.2-If some enemy piece move into this square, the piece is killed. 2-You can trade squares and pieces with the other player, by killing some of your pieces, giving some of your pieces to the other player (they will stay at the same place, but change sides) or giving some of your squares. 2.1-You can also save a enemy piece from being killed on a square or make some squares(s) safe for x turns by trading stuff. Banker Monopoly chess. 1.Normal 'Hasbro' Monopoly chess rules apply. 2.You can sell one of your squares to the bank and you will be able to move one more piece in this turn. Joe Joyce wrote on 2011-11-12 UTCHello, Glenn. You are absolutely right. Just goes to show you that I should read everything I post. Sometimes I don't if it's a known author and I am very pressed for time, as I have been recently. I don't think I subconsciously copied your game, because I've been working on or thinking about various aspects of territory for quite some time, and seeing Maxima repeatedly offered for play recently, which uses the dual win opportunities. But I certainly can't deny it's possible. Still, it wouldn't be the first time I've independently re-designed something, nor is it likely to be the last. And I'm certainly not the only one who's been in this situation. I think my scheme, if not both schemes, depend on a fairly solid pawn line to delineate territories. [And yes, I was also thinking of Go recently, but still...] You don't always get that, especially if my version goes deep into mid-game. One difference is that the player with the most pieces is likeliest to win in the tiger variants, whereas mine is more likely to be won by the smaller side, as it is then easier to meet your territory goal. Glenn Nicholls wrote on 2011-11-11 UTCHi Joe Winning by territorial gains seems rather similar to what I wrote a couple of weeks ago under 'TigerMarks'. Regards Glenn Nicholls Joe Joyce wrote on 2011-11-11 UTCJust had an odd idea - what if you played for a territorial victory? Each unit has a minimum territory it must own or occupy. For pawns, 1 square, the one they currently occupy, is sufficient. Knights require 2 squares, the one they occupy and another empty square unclaimed by any other piece. Bishops require 3, the one they occupy and 2 other unclaimed squares. Rooks require 4. Queens require 5. Kings require 9. Occupation of a square is obvious, if you occupy it, you own it. But what about empty squares? Who owns empties? This is determined first by control - if both sides can capture on that square, neither owns it. If only one player attacks that square, then that player owns it. If neither player attacks the square, but it is behind the pawn/piece lines of 1 player, that player owns it. Victory is by checkmate or by being the first player to own enough squares to satisfy that player's current army. Squares do not have to be contiguous for individual pieces, but the entire kingdom's squares must directly connect to every other owned square. The kingdom cannot be separated into disconnected pieces voluntarily, although an enemy attack could force a disconnection. If this occurs, the game cannot be won by the disconnected side other than by checkmate. So the smaller your army, the easier your victory conditions. The values I've given seem, off the top of my head, to make for a playable game, although adjustments could be made. For instance, you could reduce the king's required squares to 6, to possibly speed up the game, or make it more playable, or to handicap 1 player. Just a thought, fueled by insomnia and who knows what else. Enjoy. John Lawson wrote on 2011-11-11 UTC'Zorkmids' are the currency used in 'Zork', a text-based computer adventure game released about 1980. Using it here is just a joke. peter not aronson wrote on 2011-11-10 UTCExcellent ★★★★★hey this is very good but why the name of the coinage is 'zorkmids'??? (zzo38) A. Black wrote on 2011-02-28 UTCI think the note for 'Loaning in PieceLand' variant is not entirely correct. Such thing is not implied by rule 3 and 4 only. It is implied by rule 3 and 4 and 5, together. Anonymous wrote on 2010-04-22 UTCJames Spratt, while European chess is 'war', as you said, them of Thai chess (Makrooc) is economics, but FIDE chess and Makrook are absolutely same games, just with diffirent moves of pieces! So, i think, there must be variants, wich are closer to real wars (with thing like conquering territories, etc). Is there such games? Anonymous wrote on 2010-04-22 UTCOne mistake: in 'Making a portfolio' rook and bishop must have 7 shares, not 8: on 8x8 board they can't go further than 7 squares! Max wrote on 2008-02-13 UTCExcellent ★★★★★Maybe you could but and sell land so you can take spaces if you land on an opponents piece of land you have to pay rent. Auctions may be a good idea at the beginning people bid on pieces James Spratt wrote on 2006-03-20 UTCStock? Board? Bank? Doesn't sound very chessy to me... War's more fun. (Hey, call me simple, I don't mind...nyuk...) Anonymous wrote on 2006-03-19 UTCGood ★★★★More about previously posted idea: There are four players. Each player has a home square at a different corner of the board. When the game starts, each player has n zorkmids. (I don't know how many would work.) Their king is at his or her home square. A player's turn has 3 phases: They may offer a trade of zorkmids and stock in non-king pieces. Next they propose a move for some piece. They don't have to have stock in it. The players who do have stock in it vote whether it should do the proposed move or not. Their votes are proportional to their stock. Finally, the player may buy a piece from the 'bank' to put on their home square, if it is empty. Other rules: You have complete stock in a piece when you buy it. You always have complete stock in your king. If your king is captured (no check or checkmate), you are out of the game, and your stock in any pieces in divided among the othet players proportional to their stock in them. Any pieces that you had complete stock in are removed from the board. If you are the last remaining player, you win. Anonymous wrote on 2006-03-10 UTCGood ★★★★Just an incomplete idea here: Stock in a multi-player game. Each player may trade some of the stock he owns of a piece in exchange for stock in another piece. A piece is moved by its 'owner' unless holders of the majority of the stock vote against it. Maybe someone could work with this. Joseph DiMuro wrote on 2005-11-28 UTCExcellent ★★★★★If memory serves, I posted an 'excellent' rating for this page a while back to counter an undeserved 'poor' rating, then both comments were accidentally deleted. (That was the 'time warp' a few weeks back...) Looks like I gotta do it again. (smiles) Dr. XZero wrote on 2005-11-28 UTCPoor ★The thing about the economy is that it works best when it is deregulated and free-flowing, in other words, everything chess isn't. That's the way it goes. 15 comments displayedLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ EarlierPermalink to the exact comments currently displayed.