[ 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 Mad Queen Shogi. Missing description (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Anonymous wrote on 2010-04-28 UTCFirst, this game is almost similar to Crazyhouse! Second, if game have drops, it don't mean that it's Shogi variant: there is only 2 or 3 classic Shogi vaariants, wich uses drops (of course, Shogi is first game with drops, but it's very likely that inventor of Bughouse did not know about Shogi (we don't know anything about this inventos) and invented drops indepndetly). Main details of Shogi is promotion and unusual moves. I think, it will be good game, where knight, bishop and rook gets king's moves (according to promotion rules of modern Shogi or like in large Shogi variants - by capturing). (zzo38) A. Black wrote on 2008-11-28 UTCActually, I think Forth is a excellent program language, and I like Forth. I do think there are some problems with Axiom, for one thing you have to write your own evaluation function even if you don't want to. And Axiom also requires some Zillions code to be written as well. Also it has many problems that it has just because Zillions has these problems also. For example, you have to make picture for each piece and the board, for each game you have to do that (with Z_GenImg library you don't have to do that though). And some things just can't be done in Zillions even with a external engine. In addition, neither Zillions nor Axiom is free software. But, I am working on a new program, called Moxia ('Moxia' is a anagram of 'Axiom'), which is free software (free as in speech, and also as in you don't have to pay), standalone (doesn't require Zillions or Axiom to run), cross-platform (XUL-runner based), and more things. Such as making stacks of multiple pieces on the same cell, not requiring icons of pieces (text-based coding can be used), fix some bugs present in Zillions (such as having multiple partial moves to the same location), and various other things. Moxia is also Forth based. Sam Trenholme wrote on 2008-11-27 UTCJust glancing at Axiom real briefly, one issue is that it uses a stack-based language (Forth). I don't think it makes much sense to use a stack based language these days except for ultra-embedded applications like robotics and what not. I have never really tried learning a stack based language; I mean I do get reverse polish notation, but it just doesn't feel right to me. I think the issue is that a stack-based language is what a linguist calls an 'Object Subject Verb' (OSV) language, which are extremely rare in human languages. Languages are usually 'Subject Verb Object' (SVO) languages (English; Spanish; 'a = 2' in programming languages), which is what most programming languages use. Function calls emulate the form of 'Verb Subject Object' (VSO, such as Irish; 'f(a,2)' in programming languages) languages, however, as it turns out. So, yeah, I think Axiom might get more users if it used a more common language than Forth. - Sam Edit: Looking at it a little more, it's nice to finally see a Zillions implementation of Tanbo, which Axiom made possible. I don't see any Chess variants, however. Fergus Duniho wrote on 2008-11-27 UTCI looked at Axiom, but it was missing features needed for Chess variants. It might be possible to code the missing features I would need using the Axiom language, and the experience I've had coding similar features for Game Courier might help me with this, but I haven't had the time. I have been very busy with Game Courier programming projects, and I have had no time to learn or try Axiom. Larry Smith wrote on 2008-11-27 UTCFergus, have you tried the Axiom Development Kit created by Greg Schmidt for Zillions? He was able to get my game Thrall to play much better with this game-playing plug-in engine. I've decided that rather than 'tweaking' the common ZRF, that I might utilize this tool to improve the play of a few games. Some day, I might find the time to give it go. But I find myself distracted by other things at the moment. If you try it out, let me know how it performs. Fergus Duniho wrote on 2008-11-27 UTCOn first reading about this game last night, my response was similar to George Duke's. I was incredulously wondering if Larry had never heard of Chessgi and Crazyhouse. It seemed impossible, because these are well-known games, and I remember Larry from the early days of Zillions-of-Games. As it turns out, he has heard of them, and this game is different from them both. Unlike George, I will not give a game a poor rating for being very similar to another well-known game, because a game should be judged on its quality, not its originality. As for the latter, this is the first Chess/Shogi hybrid I've seen with the rule that a player can have no more than eight Pawns on the board at a time. This is arguably an improvement over Chessgi and Crazyhouse. I am considering introducing this rule to my game Shatranji, which is more like Shogi than Chessgi is, because it uses weaker pieces. This rule makes the game more like Shogi, whose restrictions on Pawn drops has the consequence of not letting a player have more than nine Pawns on the board. It can also make it easier for Zillions-of-Games to play the game, because it limits the search tree it has to deal with. (However, this advantage has not been taken advantage of in the ZRF. I easily beat Zillions-of-Games at Mad Queen Shogi, then, using the same settings, I got trounced at a game of Chessgi. My Chessgi and Crazyhouse ZRFs are optimized in a way that pares down the search tree as much as possible, and I would recommend that Larry use them as models for a new Mad Queen Shogi ZRF.) Anyway, I have a couple suggestions for this page. (1) Separate the discussion of the mechanics of play from the rules. Placing white pieces on checkers is a very good idea that can work just as well for Chessgi and Crazyhouse, but it is unnecessary for computer play, for which piece graphics are available as needed. (2) Mention the game's relation to Chessgi and Crazyhouse and highlight the differences between them. This will aid in understanding of the rules, and it will eliminate responses like George and I had upon reading about this game. Also, if you believe that the differences make this a better game, speak up about that. Larry Smith wrote on 2008-08-30 UTCI have posted the implementation to Zillions. It should be up by next Saturday. If anyone wishes an advance copy, just send me an email. Larry Smith wrote on 2008-08-30 UTCI have written a Zillions implementation for this game. I will post it as soon as I finish play-testing it. Anonymous wrote on 2008-08-20 UTCIt's interesting that Duke is calling this variant 'bunko', whereas he considers the 'falcon' to be a piece with a 'novel move', while it is hardly more than a walking 'Bison'. But I fear this must make me look terribly 'uneducated' in gwduke's eyes. Larry Smith wrote on 2008-08-15 UTCI request that Editors of TCVP please intervene. George Duke wrote on 2008-08-15 UTCSorry Smith resents the 'Poor'. ''So it is not the same game'' is Smith's interpretation that educated public would reject. We intend to express proper and correct Chess-invention principles longstanding from Carrera through Loyd, Dawson, Boyer, Parton, Betza. It is the responsible ethos before ''the Zillions mentality'' took root here around 2000. ''Rant'' is insulting word that if I were Editor would tend to delete (Empathize Editors' tough choices at times). Rather, each Comment is containing considerable extensive substance. Worse has been expressed (and sometimes gets removed) about accurate analysis, and I realize it goes with the territory of being expert most others are not. Smith explains his misguided rationale minimally adequately. Two Poors are perfectly fitting, and no more are necessary notwithstanding Smith's plea and rant, and we shall get to other Larry Smith ''inventions'' by and by. Actually, Mad Queen Shogi is no worse than 20% of CVPage game-rules posts, ones with the square blue marker -- generally avoiding this lowest pentile. As Smith concedes, MQS is basically tweak of Chessgi. Most would settle for brief Comment describing it under Chessgi. Lack of support for Smith proves consensus of ''the community'' in this instance. Focus here is deliberate singling out pitiable MQS, in order to contrast the two different philosophies, which ought to be on equal footing. Let's get back to some quality material. Larry Smith wrote on 2008-08-15 UTCChessgi does not restrict the Pawns to eight for each player, and it also allows for the promoted Pawn to remain so when captured. So it is not the same game. And please, George Duke, if you intend to continue your rant, I ask that you not continue selecting the 'Poor' rating. This is contrary to the democratic process, and is essentially multi-voting. The community already knows that you do not approve of this game. So further posts along this line are un-necessary and redundant. George Duke wrote on 2008-08-14 UTCPoor ★Such noblesse oblige as ''I am well aware'' does not apply to newcomers who would like to understand reasonable guidelines for the hobby of off-Chesses. Is Smith seriously defending this bunko Mad Queen Shogi? Why not maturely thank or apologize for omitting Chessgi reference? Why not use one sentence to place rules in context drawing on 200 years of similar forms, as example for readers? Smith started ten years ago with nice analysis of historic Jetan, a rewrite of it appearing this week; and none of his own artistic rules-sets since have attained the competence of ''Jetan'' -- by Burroughs or by Smith. Forget that there are so many untried alternatives, including for example Problems after T.R. Dawson or Sam Loyd. Or fiction after Bill Wall's collection of hundreds of Chess-related poems, novels, films. Or critiques of others' contributions like Smith does with Burroughs, or done in Comments by myself, Gilman, and others. Or summaries of related historic forms like Jose Carillo does nowadays with such as 8x10 Chesses from Carrera to date. Another unoriginal Rules-set, oh great, number 3001, and by veteran Larry Smith. It just encourages mediocrity. Who waste people's time, how about or when will there be moratorium, considering that new ones differentiate less and less from prior ones, at least in instances like MQS? How many ways and times does it have to be expressed that many sincere appreciators of novel Chesses simply reject the particular prolificist ethos? It is their extremism, not ours, to diverge from 1500 years of rare and cautious development of new alternate-Chess set-ups, out of respect for past existing ones. Not alone, Mad Queen Shogi is not worth the aether it is printed on. Larry Smith wrote on 2008-08-14 UTCI am well aware that there have been other proposed games which combine the Mad Queen variant with Shogi. If this game exactly copies any such, I will gladly forgo its publication. Since both players begin with White pieces, which are only differentiated by their presence on a Red or Black Checker, the turn order can start with either player. Thus '...the first player being the one with the King to the right of the Queen'. As to 'Players could opt...', this applies to allowing both Kings to begin on the same side of their Queen, either right or left. This form of setup adds a definitely different dynamic to the opening, middle and endgame. And 'Players can decide' applies to the restriction of dropping a Pawn for checkmate. Since there are obviously an insufficient number of example games to evaluate this particular condition, players might wish to omit this restriction. George Duke wrote on 2008-08-14 UTCPoor ★Bodlaender's Chessgi article shows Chessgi is invented many times since 1827. [Incidentally Alexandre invented what we call FRC today in 1820's also. 1820's were the very high point of activity for the Turk throughout Europe and North America under Maelzel. Alexandre authored 'Encyclopedie des Echecs' and introduced algebraic notation including castling O-O and O-O-O. ] Drop, Mad Mate, Reinforcement, Turnabout, Schizo, and Neo-Chess are all examples in the class of derivatives and copycats of what is known as Chessgi from Betza's renaming. Moreover here ''Players could opt...'' and ''Players can decide'' in the short write-up of Larry Smith are unpresentable. Joe Joyce's famous ''not worth the aether they're printed on'' goes for Mad Queen Shogi. How about hapless paragraph two of Smith ''...the first player being the one with the King to the right of the Queen''? 15 comments displayedLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ EarlierPermalink to the exact comments currently displayed.