Check out Alice Chess, our featured variant for June, 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
Legler's Chess. Modest 1926 variant using an Archbishop and a Chancellor. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
George Duke wrote on Sun, May 27, 2018 12:53 AM UTC:

It's hard to tell whether this appeared before or after Capablanca's.  Legler a California chess champion puts one RN and one BN on 64. 

David Paulowich wrote on Sat, Aug 28, 2004 12:59 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
Replying to Charles Gilman: Legler probably allows 'castling' using the Kings and the pieces in the corners of the board. So leaving the Rooks on the h-file means that they will still be available for castling after the Chancellors have left their home squares. When I independently came up with Paulowich's Chancellor Chess in 1997, I started off with that kind of castling rule. My variant just adds Chancellors (on the a-file), but also switches the Queens with the remaining Rooks. The revised version replaces castling with a King's Leap rule. Currently playtesting my Zillions file (kingleap.zrf) for this King's Leap Chess. <p>Michael Howe cites Schmittberger as giving the Marshal and the Queen equal value in 'Grand Chess.' Wow! I consider the Chancellor (Marshal) to be at least a pawn lower than the Queen in Unicorn Chess and Unicorn Great Chess. Note: the Piececlopedia entry for Camel has recently turned into a mini-debate on piece values.

Anonymous wrote on Mon, Jul 26, 2004 05:22 AM UTC:
What's this about the beginner's scale being 1-3-5-9? I never saw that until I came to Every source I'd previously seen said minor pieces were worth 3.5 pawns each.

Charles Gilman wrote on Sun, Jan 18, 2004 09:59 AM UTC:Good ★★★★
I am slightly surprised that the new compound pieces are on Queen's-side files. Does this really play better than having them King's-side?

Michael Nelson wrote on Mon, Feb 10, 2003 09:51 PM UTC:
I've found that the BN is about halfway between the R and Q in value, 6.5
pawns for Spielmann values. (I agree with Ralph Betza that Spielmann
values are more correct than the beginner's 1-3-5-9 scale.)

Ralph methods rate it at 4 atoms = 6.5 pawns.  Note the following:

1 atom piece  (Wazir)   = 1.5  pawns
2 atom piece  (Knight)  = 3.0  pawns
3 atom piece  (Rook)    = 4.5  pawns
4 atom piece  (BN)      = 6.5  pawns*
5 atom piece  (Queen)   = 8.5  pawns
6 atom piece  (RNN)     =10.5  pawns*
7 atom piece  (Amazon)  =12.5  pawns*

* Hypothetical Spielmann values

Pieces of Rook-strenght or less obey the equivalence 1 atom = 1.5 pawns,
but stronger pieces seem to gain additional value.  I assume this is
because the strong pieces normally mask the weakesses of their components.
 So rather than giving the BN a bonus for not being colorbound, a
colorbound 4-atom piece (Bishop-Camel for example) should be penalized.

Also note the each simple piece had one major weakness:

Knight:  Short range
Bishop:  Colorbound
Rook:    only 1/4 of its moves are forward

So BN, RN and Queen all mask two major weakness.

Peter Aronson wrote on Sun, Feb 9, 2003 12:16 AM UTC:Good ★★★★
Is there any generally accepted value for a Cardinal/Archbishop/Janus on an 8 x 8 board? The value 7 Pawns comes to mind, but I'm not sure from where. Possibly it's 1.5 Rooks, or the average value of a Rook and a Queen using the Spielmann values (4.5 and 8.5).

Tony Quintanilla wrote on Sat, Feb 8, 2003 07:25 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
Zillions file added, thanks to Peter Aronson.

Tony Quintanilla wrote on Sat, Feb 8, 2003 07:30 AM UTC:
Good point. Not a major modification, but awaits development....

8 comments displayed

Later Reverse Order Earlier

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.