[ 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 Drunken Nights. A toned down version of the Nutty Knights for Chess with different Armies. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Jörg Knappen wrote on 2012-01-26 UTCThanks for your comment. I estimate the Remarkable Rookies on the stronger side compared to the FIDEs, bit inside the error margin: I rate the Short Rook 4 Points, the Half Duck 5 Points, the Woody Rook 3 Points and the Chancellor 9 Point (half point less than a Queen), giving a total of 33 Points. Thus the Rookies are halfway between the FIDEs and the original Nutty Knights in strength. Ralph Betza gauges his armies based on play between humans, this is an important point. Human chess masters play the FIDEs much better than the different armies, therefore there FIDEs have a bonus, and the unusual pieces have a malus. Thus Ralphs estimates are still valid for human players, unless we have grandmasters of Chess with different armies. David Paulowich wrote on 2012-01-26 UTCRalph Betza wrote about piece values as follows: 'Surprisingly enough, a Commoner (a piece that moves like a King but doesn't have to worry about check) is very weak in the opening, reasonably good in the middlegame, and wins outright against a Knight or Bishop in the endgame. (There are no Commoners in FIDE chess, but the value of the Commoner is some guide to the value of the King). What can you say about the poor Knight? It doesn't get any weaker as the game goes on, it's just that the other pieces get stronger while the Knight stays the same. In fact, it would be reasonable to conclude that the value of the Knight during the opening and middlegame exceeds its conventional value. In fact, that would explain why I have won so many games by allowing my opponent to 'win' a Bishop for a Knight in the early part of the game.' That web page has inspired me to use the Silver General in several chess variants. Also, in a roundabout fashion, to create piece value systems on the 8x8, 10x10, 12x12 boards where the humble Knight is assigned a constant value, while the Rooks and Bishops gain strength on the larger boards. Getting back to the Nutty Nights, their power is greatest in the early stages of the game, but they are extremely clumsy in the endgame. In my experience, the Remarkable Rookies are worth two points more than the FIDE army in the endgame. I am not ready to disagree with Betza's opinion that the NN and RR armies have equal chances of winning: both against each other and against the FF army. Jörg Knappen wrote on 2012-01-19 UTCFinally I found a work-around that allows me to update the information here, editing in the missing user name to submission form. The forward Ferz move is now added to the Colonel, as it should be. The piece I inadvertedly created, the Charging Chancellor, may also be of the right strength to tone the Nutty Nights down. An army with srunken Nights and Charging Chancellor together will probably already being on the weak side, but inside the error margin of my estimates. Grandmasters of the Nutty Nights may prefer this very weak version. Jörg Knappen wrote on 2012-01-18 UTCSigh, you are right, and I cannot correct the mistake because of umlaut problems I cannot edit the page any longer. I defintely did not want to change the Colonel in this army. Jeremy Lennert wrote on 2012-01-18 UTCThe description of the Colonel on this page conflicts with the description on the Chess with Different Armies page, which permits the Colonel to move as a King in all directions (not just backwards like a Charging Rook). tÂ¥ph00n wrote on 2012-01-18 UTCMy idea was, when 50% of the squares are occopied, the Moo can reach a square about 75% 0,75 * 4 = 3 so by replacing the knight with Moo deducts one square from the piece, too. But this doesn't work in the endgame anymore, I understand. Christine Bagley-Jones wrote on 2012-01-18 UTCExcellent ★★★★★thanks, i like the new pieces, well done. Jörg Knappen wrote on 2012-01-18 UTCYes, it does. Christine Bagley-Jones wrote on 2012-01-18 UTCCharging Paladin (fBfNsbK). sorry, that means forward bishop and knight, and sideways and backwards king, is that right? Jörg Knappen wrote on 2012-01-18 UTCTo the very first comment: The crippling of the Charging Knight is intentional. The fact that a Charging Knight and a King can checkmate a solitary King has dramatic influence to the endgame. Replacing the Charging Knight by a Charging Moo leaves the endgame value untouched, and I doubt that the weakening in the opening phase and the middlegame is sufficient to tone done the Nutty Knights enough. But I have not playtested your proposal. As I said in the notes, there are lots of possibilities to weaken the Nutty Knights, if you find another one, it is fine. Jörg Knappen wrote on 2012-01-18 UTCTo the other question: Only the Drunken Night and the Charging Paladin mentioned in the notes section are new pieces, the others are the original pieces from Ralph Betza's Nutty Knights. The Nutty Knights page also has movement diagrams. Jörg Knappen wrote on 2012-01-18 UTCYes, backwards as a King means 3 directions, and no, forward as a Knight are all 4 forward directions, not only the two 'fast forward' directions. Christine Bagley-Jones wrote on 2012-01-17 UTCThe Charging Rook moves forwards and sidewards as a rook, but backwards as a King. The Drunken Night moves forwards as a Knight, sidewards as a Wazir, and backwards as a Ferz. The Colonel moves as a Charging Rook or as a forward Knight. Two questions. So, 'backwards as a king' means the 3 directions backwards, and 'forwards as a knight' means directly forwards, therefore 2 directions forward, is this right? Oh, and one more question, these are new pieces? tÂ¥ph00n wrote on 2012-01-17 UTCWhen I read about the Nutty Knights, first. I had also the impression, that the Chariging Knight is too strong. Unfortunately the Drunken Knight looks a bit 'crippled'. A Charging Knight, that has Moo-(= Mao + Moa)Moves, instead of the knight-moves could be more useful. 14 comments displayedLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ EarlierPermalink to the exact comments currently displayed.