Check out Glinski's Hexagonal Chess, our featured variant for May, 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
goChess. goChess. (19x19) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
💡📝Joe Joyce wrote on Wed, Feb 28, 2007 08:19 PM UTC:
The discussion on piece values in the Generic Chess Piece Creation System
comments comes at a very opportune time for this game. If goChess is to be
a workable game, the building costs of the pieces must be not only pretty
accurate, but reflect the particular building blocks used. For one thing,
the longer the Go phase goes on, the more likely it is that wazirs will
outnumber ferzes. And a new tactic of preferentially capturing ferz-stones
in a long Go phase would reduce the opponent's bishop types later. So in
line with David Paulowich's comments, I believe the ferz to be worth a
little more than the wazir in goChess, but would like to hear other's
comments. [And am hoping to shanghai a little of the piece value
Okay, are the costs of the pieces [given in Ws and Fs] appropriate? Some
immediate problems arise [besides the obvious one of needing more
research]. What are the values of some of the newer pieces, shortrange
leapers, double leapers, and bent leapers? Especially on a 19x19 board?
And what are the values of rooks, bishops, queens, or archbishops,
chancellors, amazons, on a 19x19 board? Leapers are more effective when
they have a screen to hide behind, so are worth less in the endgame, when
there are few screens available. [Building these pieces close to your
opponent's home area might make sense - you'd get to use them quickly
and early.] And while any given piece's value also depends on all the
other pieces in the game, there have to be ways to compensate and balance
effects, even if it's 'seperate ladders' for different styles of
pieces. Or can it mix all sorts of piece types, like Gary Gifford's
'Shanghai Palace'? What are the limits on total piece numbers and piece
types before a game gets ridiculous?
I lean toward using 3 longrange piece sizes now, ranges 4, 9, and
unlimited [18], as more appropriate to the board than the original 2
pieces of ranges 3 and 18. And I think the board could use some
intermediate-range pieces, moving say 6-10 squares. What happens to the
values of those pieces when they move between 8x8 and 19x19 boards? Or up
to 30x30? Does the value of the shortrange pieces 'bottom out' at some
number that changes very little if at all when the board length goes from
20 to 30, or 40? And what happens to the longrange 'unlimited' pieces
values on those boards? Do they keep going up or level off?
A cannon, for which I have made no provision, might be an interesting
piece on this board - its value? What other pieces might be interesting,
or might need to be put in their own categories to keep from being too
interesting? Simple, straightforward, easy to use and understand pieces
are preferred. ;-)

💡📝Joe Joyce wrote on Sat, Feb 24, 2007 03:52 PM UTC:
Oops! Uh, hi, Jeremy... yes, I'd be happy to play a game of this with you, because it needs playtesting. This game slipped out and was posted before it was completed, a result of the problems of me being all but computer-illiterate. My son, who does my computer work, did not realize I hadn't finished everything, and I didn't realize he'd sent it in to be posted. What's currently up is my working notes. My apologies. I'll try to finish this thing over the weekend. In the meantime, I'll accept your invite and would like to discuss some initial placement rules with you.

Jeremy Good wrote on Sat, Feb 24, 2007 01:17 PM UTC:
Joe, instead of having three separate phases, would you be willing to play a game with me in which all three phases were blended into one phase? In other words, one could optionally drop, combine or move at any given point during the game? (Obviously, one would have to have built up enough atom-ic pieces to make an exchange.) An additional rule or two might be needed to make that totally do-able, but what do you say? Game?

3 comments displayed

Later Reverse Order Earlier

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.