The site has moved to a new server, and there are now some issues to fix. Please report anything needing fixing with a comment to the homepage.



The Chess Variant Pages




[ 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 EarlierEarliest
Redistribution 3d Chess. Relatively small 3d variant with short-range pieces including Pasha family. (4x6x4, Cells: 96) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Charles Gilman wrote on 2010-06-12 UTC
The array looks correct now. The place I was talking about non-array pieces being missing was beneath 'Available Pieces - This table shows you what pieces belong to the piece set you are using.' I wasn't suggesting showing them on any kind of artificial extension to the board - although during play they would of course appear on the board itself through fusion and fisson. I hope that this clarifies things further.

Joe Joyce wrote on 2010-06-11 UTC
/play/pbm/play.php?game%3DRedistribution3d%26settings%3DR3d2

I still need to do the chart of pieces and how they work. I might just put the combo and breakdown pieces on the side of the preset, in islands of board, as both visual reference and icon code for the pieces.

Charles Gilman wrote on 2010-06-10 UTC
Here are the four symmetries. Note that kv and KV are the Emperors.

1: The way I wrote the rules page was with mirror symmetry:

fv de wv ae | da ve kv wf | wf wd fa da | ae wv de fv
-- -- -- -- | -- -- -- -- | -- -- -- -- | -- -- -- --
-- -- -- -- | -- -- -- -- | -- -- -- -- | -- -- -- --
-- -- -- -- | -- -- -- -- | -- -- -- -- | -- -- -- --
-- -- -- -- | -- -- -- -- | -- -- -- -- | -- -- -- --
FV DE WV AE | DA VE KV WF | WF WD FA DA | AE WV DE FV

2: Here is vertical-axis rotational symmetry:

ae wv de fv | wf kv ve da | da fa wd wf | fv de wv ae
-- -- -- -- | -- -- -- -- | -- -- -- -- | -- -- -- --
-- -- -- -- | -- -- -- -- | -- -- -- -- | -- -- -- --
-- -- -- -- | -- -- -- -- | -- -- -- -- | -- -- -- --
-- -- -- -- | -- -- -- -- | -- -- -- -- | -- -- -- --
FV DE WV AE | DA VE KV WF | WF WD FA DA | AE WV DE FV

3: Here is horizontal-axis rotational symmetry:

ae wv de fv | wf wd fa da | da ve kv wf | fv de wv ae
-- -- -- -- | -- -- -- -- | -- -- -- -- | -- -- -- --
-- -- -- -- | -- -- -- -- | -- -- -- -- | -- -- -- --
-- -- -- -- | -- -- -- -- | -- -- -- -- | -- -- -- --
-- -- -- -- | -- -- -- -- | -- -- -- -- | -- -- -- --
FV DE WV AE | DA VE KV WF | WF WD FA DA | AE WV DE FV

4: Here is rotated mirror symmetry:

fv de wv ae | da fa wd wf | wf kv ve da | ae wv de fv
-- -- -- -- | -- -- -- -- | -- -- -- -- | -- -- -- --
-- -- -- -- | -- -- -- -- | -- -- -- -- | -- -- -- --
-- -- -- -- | -- -- -- -- | -- -- -- -- | -- -- -- --
-- -- -- -- | -- -- -- -- | -- -- -- -- | -- -- -- --
FV DE WV AE | DA VE KV WF | WF WD FA DA | AE WV DE FV

Charles Gilman wrote on 2010-06-09 UTC
On the plus side the cells are now arranged the way that I anticipated, and the White pieces are correct. As I wrote it, however, all Black pieces should match the White one on the same rank, not just the Alibabas and Princes. A rotationally symmetric version might be interesting as well, but the Black pieces aren't set up for that either. There are four possible symmetries, which I could outline when I've had time offline to write them all up. Finally, the off-board list of possible pieces should include non-array as well as array pieces.

Joe Joyce wrote on 2010-06-09 UTC
Charles, is this preset closer to what you want?

/play/pbm/play.php?game%3DRedistribution3d%26settings%3DR3d2

Joe Joyce wrote on 2010-06-07 UTC
I think we're in agreement, or close enough. I will have to put a complete chart together to make sure we are playing with the same pieces, or more accurately, to make sure I know what pieces we're playing with. I don't need it to re-do the preset, but it's getting toward midnight here, so I'll save that part for a later time. I've had enough trouble from working on this thing sleepy. :)

Charles Gilman wrote on 2010-06-06 UTC
To Joe Joyce: it looks to me as if the pieces are shown as follows:
	ba/bd	-	Wazbaba	Prince	Fazbaba
	bb/bc	Pasha	Fearful	Alibaba	Waffle
	ca/cd	-	Dybbuk	Wazbaba	Vicbaba
	cb/cc	Khan	Duke	Vinnock	Wazzock
	da/dd	-	Baron	Fearful	Wilful
	db/dc	Imam	Elk	Vinnock	Fezzock
Is this correct? If so, these images work for me.

To George Duke: I judge by who takes up my variants for implementation. It looks like Redistribution 3d Chess is a success by that measure.

Joe Joyce wrote on 2010-06-05 UTC
Charles, check out the preset now. The pieces are done, if you like them enough. Now all I have to do is rewrite the preset an entirely different way.

George Duke wrote on 2010-06-04 UTC
Which CV or two of Gilman does he recommend seeing played someday for posterity? At Next Chess to be re-continued, Aronson gave replacement CV in Not-Particularly-New for his Transactional, and I have Gifford's down to couple choices. They and Gilman are next on schedule. Expecting no reply from Charles, who like pure mathematician cares nary whit for utility, I intend to just plug in tentative AltOrth Hex the ongoing line-up, making it the first hexagonal there. Neither is there at NextChess project a 3-d yet like Redistribution.

Charles Gilman wrote on 2010-06-03 UTC
Yes, that's correct.

Joe Joyce wrote on 2010-06-03 UTC
Okay, I think I get the board config. It will have 4 white pieces across the bottom and 4 black pieces across the top of each 4x6 rectangle. You want the board cut perpendicularly to the way I did it. [I gotta be closer, at least, with this one...]

As for the pieces, much as I loved Rocky and Bullwinkle, I agree they don't belong in this game. I will use the pieces we have available, but they will not fit the patterns established by the other pieces.

With luck, I'll be able to put this together over the weekend.

Charles Gilman wrote on 2010-06-02 UTC
Regarding images for piecs, on the whole I think that the component-based images as currently shown on their starting spaces work best. For example, stick with the elephant marked witha crescent for Elephant+Eunuch and no need for the antlered Pawn image. Short-range as the pieces are, none of them are really Pawn-like. A Rocky & Bullwinkle theme to the images doesn't grab me, as my comment on the Squirrel piece demonstrates my lack of familiarity with that series. If you tell me which six pieces you're struggling with I'll have a look and see if any image strikes me as especially suiting it.

Charles Gilman wrote on 2010-05-31 UTC
'You want me to cut the board the same way, but spread it out north to south [up and down on the screen] instead of east to west [right to left]. Is this correct?'
No, if you look at the diagram you will see that it is still spread out in the same direction, but each block is a level rather than a rank. The numbers will thereby exclusively represent ranks.
'It looked and felt ugly to me in the raumschach-type configuration.'
As Raumschach has a 5x5x5 board, this could serve as an illustration of the effect of my suggestion on scrolling. For a Raumschach board it would make no difference. For a Redistribution board 6 blocks 4 high and 4 wide are replaced by 4 blocks 6 high and 4 wide. Does this clarify things?

Joe Joyce wrote on 2010-05-30 UTC
A couple quick comments. First, I just expanded both 3D shatranj boards to give the largest possible size on my screen. I'd originally had the 'scale' setting at 49, but kicked it up to 65. If that takes the board off the side of your screen, you should be able to reduce the scale back toward 49, or whatever size fits your screen. But now, I'd have to reduce the size of the boards 40% anyway, to stack them top to bottom on one screen. [No, I don't have a Mac with a rotatable screen.]

Second, I'm curious about something. The 2 3DGtS presets are exactly equivalent, but I believe that people would play them a little differently, that they would sometimes make different moves from the same starting positions, because the boards look different. It seems to me that this is one way computers and people would have to be different; a computer's 'thinking' is not channeled by appearances [only by algorithms].

Joe Joyce wrote on 2010-05-30 UTC
Hey, Charles. The Duke and Elk are now as shown in the set-up on the 2 end boards [labeled 'an' and 'fn'], but we are short 6 pieces for the breakdown products of your combo pieces. I was theming the pieces as best I could, sharp angles being ferz-type pieces, crescent moons being the trigonal 2-space leapers, that sort of thing. But that's busted with the last 6 pieces. I can replace the current Duke and Elk with the crown and moose pawn, but that just offends my sense of aesthetics so much I'd want to bring the squirrel in, so we could have a moose and squirrel combo, and then maybe a Boris and Na...ahh, well, I may just look for the 6 least-offensive pieces and stick them in. Might swap the Duke pieces, so I could free up the one currently used for one of the 6, if it looks better that way. Any suggestions you may have, from ditch the moose to having a specific Boris piece to use, I will take at this point. If something becomes too annoying, it can be changed. 

Alright, I see what you mean now by the board configuration. You want me to cut the board the same way, but spread it out north to south [up and down on the screen] instead of east to west [right to left]. Is this correct? The reason I did it across is to get the biggest possible board on the screen, and there's more room side to side. The pieces are kinda small now, and if I shrink the board any more, I, if no one else, will have problems distinguishing them. What I can do is turn your whole array sideways, like I did for 3D Great Shatranj. It looked and felt ugly to me in the raumschach-type configuration. 
/play/pbm/play.php?game%3D3D+Great+Shatranj%26settings%3D3D+GtS+1
/play/pbm/play.php?game%3D3D+Sideways+Great+Shatranj%26settings%3D3D+SGtS+1

Please give me the specific alphanumerics you want for your up and down layout, and I will rotate them also, so that if you turn your monitor on its side, the gameboard will be laid out and numbered the way you want. To lay out the board up and down and have it fit on one screen, I'd have to shrink everything around 20%. It's doable, should you wish.

Charles Gilman wrote on 2010-05-30 UTC
Now I'm confused. I understood that the array pieces - including the Duke and Elk - were the ones displayed on the end ranks. Are you using different images for array and non-array Dukes, Elks, et cetera? If you are, I see no reason to do so.

Any news on whether you're taking up my idea to arrange the cells in the form

.... .... .... ....
.... .... .... ....
.... .... .... ....
.... .... .... ....
.... .... .... ....
.... .... .... ....

instead of 

.... .... .... .... .... ....
.... .... .... .... .... ....
.... .... .... .... .... ....
.... .... .... .... .... ....

to get the ranks as numbers and files as either letters or pairs of letters and reduce the need to scroll?

Joe Joyce wrote on 2010-05-28 UTC
Hey, Charles, these seem to be our choices. Do you have any preferences? /play/pbm/play.php?game%3DRedistribution+3d+chess%26settings%3DRed3d
The Duke is the trapezoidal crown by the all too obvious this-is-not-really-an-Elk piece.

Joe Joyce wrote on 2010-05-26 UTC
Charles, my apologies. I have been quite tied up with various things, and have not had the mental energy to try to push past the current block with the preset, which is that I have 3 pieces where I need 6. Part of the answer might lie with the Duke and Elk. There is an unadorned crown in the piece set called 'Duke' [I first saw it in Rennchess], which is appropriate, and there is also a pawn with antlers that could double for the Elk. The remaining problems are that I'm still short 1 piece, and our elk will look suspiciously like a pawn with moose antlers. 

As for the slowness, several family health issues have flared up in the past months which often eat up all my free time. I am hoping they will resolve soon, but I'm not expecting it. Thus my lack of obvious presence onsite. It is not from lack of desire.

Charles Gilman wrote on 2010-05-26 UTC
Joe, have you given up on the implementation or are you just very busy with other things? It would be nice to know whether it's still a possibility.

Charles Gilman wrote on 2010-04-27 UTC
Right, so that redistributing of letters and numbers seems not to have worked. How about going back to letters across the bottom and numbers down the side, but show each level as a block rather than each rank. That would also make the whole display more balanced and lessen the need to scroll (eliminate altogether for a really big screen), as it would be 6 rows by 4 lots of 4 columns rather than 4 rows by 6 lots of 4 columns.

Joe Joyce wrote on 2010-04-25 UTC
Okay, Charles, step 1 is done, tentatively. I wanted a dabbaba with a black crescent moon on its side for the DA'/DE. No joy, so I went with some sorta bishopy type pieces to complete the basic setup. Those 3 pieces, the MI, PA, & 1M, I originally thought I might save for the remaining pieces in the game, and I may need them for those other pieces yet. 

The massive piece listing is Alfaerie: Many, and that is what I am looking through to find the game pieces. When I've found them, I'll drop all the unused ones. Fergus has provided a nice little check-box for that purpose. And I changed the letters and numbers. If you see anything you like in the list, let me know. 

Now I have to come up with the 3 combo pieces, and the 6 remaining breakdown pieces. I'll put those icons in the middle of the preset, and have them  removed when the game starts.  /play/pbm/play.php?game%3DRedistribution+3d+chess%26settings%3DRed3d

Charles Gilman wrote on 2010-04-25 UTC
Regarding piece images, so far so good. I look forward to seeing the rest. Having a list of all possible images below is a bit confusing. One problem is that you appear to have letterd the ranks. I could understand files being relabelled aa-dd or ea-hd or wa-zd, but the convention of numbering ranks and ranks alone is one that I have tried to observe in all my face-to-face 2-player cubic variants.

Joe Joyce wrote on 2010-04-23 UTC
Okay, I've started: /play/pbm/play.php?game%3DRedistribution+3d+chess%26settings%3DRed3d
Some pieces are easy, if you accept the 2D version. Others are going to likely be a little strange. [We need a piece artist onsite.] Figure I'll go with some of the crown-like and odd bishop-type icons for what I haven't got, except for the Elk, which apparently is going to a a sort of mooselike pawn. And the Dybbuk is likely to be a hydra or griffin or somesuch.

Charles Gilman wrote on 2010-04-22 UTC
Feel free to go ahead. If you can find images that echo the components - or at least 2d-compatible ones - of the pieces in some way.

Joe Joyce wrote on 2010-04-20 UTC
Okay, I'll put a preset together. Do you have any preferred piece icons, or shall I just do it, then we can discuss possible substitutions? [If we play our cards right, we just might suck someone in to playtest our 2 games in a compare and contrast mode, which might be some kind of record for this site. Have we ever had 2 higher-D games looked at together this way?] 

As for the notation, be careful! You've got me thinking... Seriously, the simpler the notation you can describe things in, the deeper the understanding you might get. [There's a branch of math where you start with 0, then the next number is the successor to zero: S0, and the next is the successor to the successor..., so that 3 is written SSS0.] As you might have imagined, I'll be happy to discuss notation with you, too. The problem with using an 'orthogonal prime' as a 'diagonal' in your game is that 'orthogonal prime' is not appropriate for that, in your game. W' is most logically a 3D wazir, not a 2D ferz. The way your pieces work, you want, for ease of handling, a way to look at 2D and 3D components of both orthogonal and diagonal moves. My notation is a compromise between your simple and unambiguous but directionless notation and something that only a math major could love.  

Now, in 3D Great Shatranj, the W' and D' notation are far more useful, because my 3D elephants are just 3D warmachines rotated in 2 of 3 dimensions, and have 'exactly' the same moves otherwise. Weak analogies to particle physics are noted, as the rotation of the 3D wazir splits it into 3 3D elephants, breaking symmetry... and now I gotta run. Enjoy.

25 comments displayed

Later Reverse Order EarlierEarliest

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.