[ 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 Kristensen's Game. A conscious attempt to restructure Chess from 1948. (9x9, Cells: 81) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating](zzo38) A. Black wrote on 2011-01-25 UTCOne possibility for resigning is to allow it but give the winner one half extra point, so that it matches with the other scoring rules. George Duke wrote on 2010-06-28 UTCThough King may Castle, he may not want to because of Barrier Pawn. Barrier Pawn is invincible except in capture by opposing counterpart, making her a wall of one before King. Also the regular Pawns may step back one, so why castle? Stay centalized like in a Xiangqi mandatory palace. All the pieces may move from the array. Afterwards, step a Pawn or two backwards. Post World Wars and pre-television, Kristensen's is piece-heavy Pawn-weak -- Barrier Pawn as a piece fashioned from mediaeval Man. In reading the past comments, there is early Gilman correcting Knappen that enhanced Bishop here does not have can-mate property. For counter example, thought up in 1983, Cetina's Bishop conversion enables Bishop and King alone checkmating. Cetina's being with the significance the Bishop is neither Cardinal nor Primate (Bishop + Wazir), such Primate used once in a while and of M&B 01 anyway. (The Dragon Horse -- that same B,W -- is infrequent westwards, where such overpowering straightforward unbinding of Bishop is avoided, let's suppose.) In Kristensen's, the Bishop vertical enhancement seems to complement well the same more restricted for the Pawn in over-all balance. They had more time in the 1940s, 1950s to think up better CVs than we rush off today for self-acclaim. Anonymous wrote on 2010-06-27 UTCWhat the point of barrier pawn? George Duke wrote on 2007-10-30 UTCGood ★★★★This CV has all Excellent and Poor, and that happens not so infrequently. Such wide fluctuation may be indicative of Chaos, or transition to and from chaotic system, or state change. In 1948 Kristensen's is a more liberal Bishops' Conversion rule than Cetina proposes later in 1983. Bishop adds one step forward and back to its inventory as often as wanted. Kristensen's shows 9x9 like all of Maura's Modern, Cetina's, Chancellor Chess and Ministers Chess. The one Barrier Pawn is a cannibal but for capturing the other Barrier Pawn. From the amazing starting array, every piece can be moved. The better CVs implement only few new rules rather than overcomplexify. Kristensen's has all interesting features, and the only mistakes are having two Queens and secondly using unnecessary RNs(the Carrera masterpiece Champion) and worse placing them next to regular Knights. Greg Strong wrote on 2004-10-02 UTCPoor ★I haven't given a game a 'poor' rating yet, but I really can't give this game anything else. The first thing I think when I look at this is 'Isn't there ANYTHING about the game of Chess that was ok as-is?' He changed the number of files, the number of ranks; changed the move of the Rook, the Bishop, the Pawns (no enpassant) ... He re-arranged the pawns! He doubled the number of Queens!!! And then there's the barrier pawn, which might make center-play more interesting, but boy is it nothing like a 'normal' Chess piece. And no resigning?!? I won't even comment on that one. On the up-side, yes, he did add symmetry, but I just can't see giving it a 'good' rating. It just looks like an extreme over-reach that wasn't all that well thought-out. Of course, I must admit that I haven't played it (yet) ... It is possible that my opinion would improve. Matthew Paul wrote on 2004-09-26 UTCExcellent ★★★★★Okay, I think I WAS too harsh. I'm changing my rating to 'good' (P + E = G) for concept and the interesting features (eg. Barrier Pawn). Michael Howe- Your ideas have been more absolute than my criticism, so I don't think I deserve sole credit. Anyway, this is what I had in mind: - Dragonhorses instead of Bishops: This is less 'fiddly' and compensates somewhat for the power lost in the next change. - Normal Rooks - c and g file pawns brought back one space: This solves the clumsy knight development problem. I wasn't so concerned over the knight's value, just that this minor piece had terrible development, whereas the major pieces had easy development. This setup, although not as pleasing as the original, allows knights to contest the centre much more easily, and also slows down dual Queens getting out too early. This is just a matter of taste though. - Resignation allowed. Although there might be a nice checkmate available, this rule also lengthens games in which it is obvious who the victor is. This is a necessary evil to play this game practically. I think the bishop position is interesting, so I have left it. Other comments: - I missed the backwards step of the pawn. That is also another positive for this game for interest. - Is this correct: Stalemate and perpetual check give you one point, but your opponent gets 1/2 point? If this is the case, it still encourages checkmates (in a tournament) while the player who stalemated gets a reward for their effort. I don't support this for perpetual check though. That's probably enough of my opinions for one comment, so I'll stop now. Matthew Paul wrote on 2004-08-28 UTCPoor ★Although this variant has some very nice aspects, I believe it also has a great number of flaws. Positive: -Total symmetry which leads to balance between white and black -Unusual Setup of pawns in which all are protected exactly once by a major piece. -Barrier Pawn makes centre harder to control Negative: -I concur with Charles Gilman's comments that adding non-capturing moves to bishops is a very untidy way to unbind them. If those moves were capturing, as J'org Knappen first thought, then it would be much less 'fiddly' and more interesting, being similar to Dragonhorses in Shogi. -The Addition of Knight-moves to the rooks. First of all, there is already enough power added by the dual-queens. Secondly, I just prefer to have normal rooks, and I don't see how adding the knight-moves help 'restructure' chess. If anything, they seem to unbalance the game. -Knights made almost completely useless. First of all, as there are knight-moves in the rooks, the knights become less useful later on, and with more mobile bishops, knights become a lot weaker than bishops. I don't see why this has been done. But most of all: -Development too hard for the 'weakest' piece, the knights, and too easy for all the other pieces! In fact, the diagonally-moving pieces are already attacking lots of squares before they move! And the Rooks can get out really easily if needed. But not the Knight, which has its logical development blocked by a pawn! Surely the point of weaker pieces (at least in FIDE Chess) is to go out early, then let the big pieces come later. Seeing this is trying to 'restructure' chess, it should try to at least play similarly. Maybe I'm being a bit harsh. However, a bit of restructuring THIS variant could lead to a very interesting game. Anonymous wrote on 2004-08-25 UTCSigh -- I have overlooked the word non-capturing in the description of the bishop. Thus it lacks the can-mate property. I still maintain my rating of Kristensen's game. The symmetry he has choosen is necessary for the balance because it allows some point mirror play (in Go, this way of playing is known as mane go). Thus, an advantage achieved by white on the left side can be got by black on the right one. The center square is special, but hard to gain. --J%org Knappen Charles Gilman wrote on 2004-08-18 UTCAs I understand it, 'non-capturing' means also 'non-checking'. A King immediately in front of a Pawn is not in check (but may be blocking it completely), so neither is one directly in front of a Bishop in this variant. Therefore the Bishop's enhancement has no effect on its check(mat)ing power. To me, adding non-capturing moves to the Bishop seems a very untidy way of unbinding it. There are many better sdolutions to the problem of Bishops on an odd-files board. Wraparound and the middle option from Billiards Chess both unbind, particularly useful for single-Bishop variants. Two Bishops can be bound to opposite colours by starting adjacent one side of the King with another piece similarly paired the other side. This is the approach used in Wildebeest Chess, Bachelor Chess, Bachelor Kamil, and most recently Mainzer Schach. It is curious that the inventor of the last should rate so highly a game relying on what I think of as 'botched Bishops'. Anonymous wrote on 2004-08-03 UTCExcellent ★★★★★Ejnar Kristenson has good solutions for really tough problems: He has created a chessvariant with an odd number of files which keeps the balance between white and black. Specially, the center square is hard to possess thanks to the innovation of the barrier pawn. The enhanced bishop has the can-mate property and is an interesting piece by itself. I also love the special rules discouraging the anomalous endings of a chess game and the rule forbidding to resign: If you have found a nice combination, you can enjoy the checkmate and your joy isn't spoiled by the resignation of your opponent. A chess variant for REAL CHESS PLAYERS. --J'org Knappen 10 comments displayedLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ EarlierPermalink to the exact comments currently displayed.