Check out Grant Acedrex, our featured variant for April, 2024.

[ 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
Jacks and Witches 84. Variant on 84 squares with special pieces and special squares. (12x8, Cells: 84) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
George Duke wrote on Sat, May 5, 2018 12:55 PM UTC:

Probably the failing of Jacks & Witches now sixteen years is the weak value of the Jack.  

The five paired pieces of Bilateral carry over, with values estimating Pawn 1, Lion 2, Knight 3, Bishop 2.5, Rook 5, King 2, Cannon 6, Witch 7.   Nine piece-types on 84 is near routine piece-type density 10%, the way Orthochess has 6 types on 64 squares.  Bishop lessens vis Knight for the chopped board.  The four transporter squares do not disproportionately affect the p-vs,  and power density does appear to be under regular 60% a bit.  Not justifying power calculations here, the idea is total piece values to board size -- the way orthodox shows 39/64.

Witch is the great innovation, but Jack needs some work. Being in hand and moving out of its eye are admirable, but Jack's regular movement when not doing Eye mode could just use strengthening rather than any overcomplication. Instead of mere Waz/Ferz, one of Falcon or Squirrel or Bent Hero or something could be nice balance. And at the same time that would up the power density proportion to match the fundamentalist Chess FIDE 60%.

George Duke wrote on Fri, Sep 23, 2016 09:25 PM UTC:Good ★★★★

More could be done in other CVs with the Transporter or Teleporter cells of 2002 Jacks & Witches.

George Duke wrote on Wed, Jul 9, 2008 05:10 PM UTC:
Only one Comment (Jeremy Good's) in over 3 years. Teleporting here is not too wild through only four transporter cells. All Orthodox pieces present except Queen give anyone foothold of familiarity right away. Xiangqi Cannon can convert to Canon: for professionals that's Pao and Vao. Jack needs to be strengthened because its one-stepping serves mostly as blocker. Movement out of the ''Eye,'' when opened, the symmetric square along rank, has to be unique. (JKLLargeCV)

Jeremy Good wrote on Wed, Aug 22, 2007 09:00 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
Easily one of the most creative, original and enjoyable chess variants so far invented, well done!

George Duke wrote on Fri, Mar 11, 2005 06:38 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
'JKL,LargeCV': Done under constraint of 84 squares, the transporter squares might work even better at remote regions of a decimal chess, say a2 etc. or b3 etc. Most likely Witches' dragging is unique and has good potential elsewhere. Games will go over outside Chess Variant Page having exotic pieces combined with orthodox pieces, as in Jacks & Witches. Cannon/Canon as flip piece; Murray Lion; Witch as Immobilizer. Finally, Jack's moving out of its Eye(See Rules) works by definitely-underutilized geometry that could be transposed to normal rectangular board experimentally.

💡📝Antoine Fourrière wrote on Mon, Aug 4, 2003 02:45 PM UTC:
Thanks for the comments, Roberto. (I may not be able to respond to later
comments before next month, but they are welcome.)

No, I hadn't your idea, because when two Witches stick together, the
resolution is coming quick, and that clumsy hole in the board lowers the
risk of a somewhat infortunate early decision. (Maybe I should have ruled
that both Witches remain immobilized until the end, once they enter in contact.)
Certainly, on a 96-square board, or preferably 108-square board, I would give each side two Witches.

On an unrelated matter, I did't want to use full Murray Lions, but maybe
I should allow them a two-square capturing jump when the prey is the Witch.
When Witches are involved, the Knight is stronger than the Lion. (The
tampered evaluation of my ZRF doesn't take this fact into account.)

Roberto Lavieri wrote on Mon, Aug 4, 2003 02:12 PM UTC:Good ★★★★
I wrote the last comment. Antoine, have you tried this game without the hole in the middle of the board?. (It is not Bilateral Chess, I mean Jacks and Witches without the killed squares)

Anonymous wrote on Mon, Aug 4, 2003 02:03 PM UTC:Good ★★★★
The game is very interesting, but the game play is a little strange, you have to coordinate tactics in each side of the board. It is not an easy matter the planification of strategies, because it is deep and dynamics can change a lot from a side to another. I have made a few tests of game play against Zillions, and I must admit that I'm not still a good player of this game, some practice is needed, but it is funny!

Antoine Fourrière wrote on Sun, Jan 19, 2003 10:05 AM UTC:
I guess it is what happened.

Antoine Fourrière wrote on Sun, Jan 19, 2003 09:47 AM UTC:
As for dropping your Jacks, Zillions wants you to click on the square on which they must be dropped (c2, d2, e2 or f2 if you're White, and c7, d7, e7 or f7 if you're Black). But don't drop them on symmetrical squares, or they will be permanently paralysed.

jianying ji wrote on Sun, Jan 19, 2003 02:15 AM UTC:
by symmetrical square, Antoine means the square of the same rank,
but on a file as far from the farther edge as the original file
is from the closer edge.

So the symmetrical square of a square on y file is on the j file
similarly the following pairs of files correspond:


so jack first moves from its square to the corresponding square in the
corresponding file then moves as a firz or wazir depending on the 
location of the kings.

🕸Fergus Duniho wrote on Sun, Jan 19, 2003 12:03 AM UTC:
Instead of clearing things up for me, your response to my question has just confused things further. I have no idea how a Jack moves, and I need clear and detailed explanations. I don't know what a mirror Wazir or a mirror Firz is. I don't know what eyes and symmetrical squares are and how this relates to how this piece moves. When I recently played a game against Zillions, my Jacks could never even move, and I had no clue what to do with them.

Antoine Fourrière wrote on Sat, Jan 18, 2003 11:00 PM UTC:
The eye of the Jack is the symmetrical square (e.g. z4 and i4, or d7 and
e7, are each other's eye). A square and its eye are not on the same
Hence, when the Jack goes as a mirror Wazir (say, from z4 to h4, i3, i5 or
j4), it is colorbound, while when it goes as a mirror Firz (say, from z4
to h3, h5, j3 or j5), it is color-changing.

🕸Fergus Duniho wrote on Sat, Jan 18, 2003 09:47 PM UTC:
There is a contradiction in the description of how the Jack moves. Here is what it says: 'It moves (and captures) from its eye, as a Wazir if the Kings are on squares of the same color, and as a Firz otherwise, that is, the Jack is colorbound, like the reflecting Wazir, as long as both Kings are on squares of the same color.' First, this is saying that a Jack moves as a Wazir if the two Kings are on the same color. Since a Wazir moves one space orthogonally, this means that a Jack is not colorbound when two Kings are on the same color. Rather, it is colorbound only when the Kings are not on the same color, for then it moves as the colorbound Firz. Yet it goes on to say that the Jack is colorbound when the two Kings are on the same color. Please clarify the rules on how the Jack moves.

Anonymous wrote on Mon, Nov 18, 2002 12:37 AM UTC:
If a Witch on c3 teleports to f3, a paralyzed piece on b3 is dragged to c3, but not further. The exclusion principle holds, so if the owner of the Witch has a Knight on f3 or c6, and there is an enemy Knight on b2, the Witch is barred from teleporting to f6.

Peter B. Aronson wrote on Sun, Nov 17, 2002 09:50 PM UTC:Good ★★★★
Could you explain this sentence: 'A Witch drags a piece on a teleporter by teleporting in the other direction.' -- I have no idea what it means. <p> Thanks!

16 comments displayed

Later Reverse Order Earlier

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.