[ 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 Sky . Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Carlos Cetina wrote on 2012-09-20 UTCBoth diagrams have the same opening setup but on different boards: 11x10 and 11x11. OK. Wait your email. Christine Bagley-Jones wrote on 2012-09-20 UTCi've updated this again, i think the Threeleapers on the 2nd rank promoting to a Flamingo was too quick, so only Trippers now on 2nd rank. Diagram below shows this start position. And Carlos, the 11x11, is interesting, i'll email you about it. The two diagrams you posted in your earlier post are both the same? Carlos Cetina wrote on 2012-09-19 UTCRegarding the "distorted diagram", I meant to that of my comment posted in October 16, 2009. Sky's idea is excellent; I just want to see if it would be possible to find an opening setup such as the pieces be placed harmoniously following the basic notion of symmetry and at the same time they "...cannot come in contact with each other, allowing them to start their journey through promotion", as you said. Given the drawbacks you point out regarding my before proposed setup ["After the Tripper, say on d1, moves to g4, it cannot move forward because the black Tripper on g10 can capture it. And also, the black Tripper on g10 now cannot move. Same with the Tripper on g1, after it moves, it also cannot move forward, because of the black Tripper on d10, which now cannot move too."] what about these other couple of setups? If again there are drawbacks, maybe it could be solved by switching some pieces. I would be honored if you post a Sky's Carlos Cetina Variant, but I'm not looking for that. I would be happy if we [you and me] find an opening setup that fulfill both requirements: the yours [pieces cannot come in contact with each other, allowing them to start their journey through promotion] and the mine [pieces placed harmoniously following the basic notion of symmetry]. Sky makes me remember JÃ¶rg Knappen's Nachtmahr that also features pieces with awkward moves. Sky and Nachtmahr are related in the sense that both give life to that kind of [hard, tough, uncomfortable, complicated] pieces. Christine Bagley-Jones wrote on 2012-09-19 UTCHey Carlos, the diagram doesn't look distorted to me. Well, i'm not sure about your setup, tell me what you think. It's all the Trippers on the back rank. After the Tripper, say on d1, moves to g4, it cannot move forward because the black Tripper on g10 can capture it. And also, the black Tripper on g10 now cannot move. Same with the Tripper on g1, after it moves, it also cannot move forward, because of the black Tripper on d10, which now cannot move too. Surely this cannot be good? The way i have it set up, most pieces cannot come in contact with each other, allowing them to start their journey through promotion. And the ones that can move and attack (only the Fourleapers), the opposing side has this attack defended. I note also, where i had 3 Threeleapers and 2 Fourleapers in opening setup, you have 4 Threeleapes and 1 Fourleaper. Is this intended? It is really minor thing though, because the Commuters do promote to Fourleapers. Anyway, let me know what you think, you have made me look at this more now, and i see something about the opening setup that may need .. fine tunning, curse you, hehe. It is very difficult to get these pieces in perfect opening setup, because of their awkward moves, so painful, but it is worth it, these pieces are rarely seen and hardly a game plays with them having a major role. If you are happy with a setup, i can always make a 2nd 'Carlos Cetina Variant' if you wish. Carlos Cetina wrote on 2012-09-18 UTCChristine: I agree that introducing a queen or an alfil/dabbabah would destroy the mood of the game; admit it was a suggestion quite superficial. Sorry for the distorted diagram; anyway by clicking on the EDIT button it can be seen rightly. Essentially, what I really like to say is why not to introduce reversed or rotational symmetry in the setup? For example thus: Do you see any flaw in this setup? Is there any other reason why not to accept it? I like your ideas but it's hard to me to admit the lack of symmetry in games [like Sky] whose starting setups are not randomized; in these last my likings are inverted: I prefer asymmetric setups regarding one another side. Christine Bagley-Jones wrote on 2012-09-18 UTCAwhile ago Jeremy Good and Carlos Cetina talked about how there could be flaw in this game because of the piece called the 'Tripper' being able to give check on the 2nd move. Jeremy said 'it might restrict the nature of opening possibilities too much'. I agree with this, so i have updated the game to replace the offending 'Tripper' with a 'Threeleaper', which leaves the game pretty much the same but removing the problem of the 2nd move check. Thanks. Christine Bagley-Jones wrote on 2009-10-18 UTChello :)) after white plays h1-e4 black has five diff moves to get out of mate and i believe this is more than enough. After black moves a tripper in front of the king, if white decides the play the same piece again and check black king then black can move their king forward. Now i know in normal chess, moving the king to the 2nd rank on your second move is not good, lol, in this game, it is fine, the king can nicely move up the board because of the nature of the pieces in the game, and the king is a 'strong fighting piece' in this kind of game. Also, it is interesting i thought that there is a mate on the 2nd move hehe. i tested the game a lot, and didnt find white had any winning advantage. the idea of this game is to give pieces which are generally seen only in fairy chess problems a field of play. Having pawns in the game makes these pieces very awkward to play, so with no pawns these pieces can freely play without problems associated with pawns, and play they do, surprising well and flowing very happily. the very set up of the pieces actually makes them not come in contact with each other easily in the opening play. the idea of having a queen in the game i would consider extremely bad because it is too powerful and would destroy the mood of the game, and also a piece that moves like alfil/dababa too strong and would also destroy flow and mood of game. well i hope this site is going well, i take a look every now and then and of course new games keep getting invented, nice :) i have been playing 'World of Warcraft' these last few years, what an amazing game :) kk all the best, bye for now :) Carlos Cetina wrote on 2009-10-16 UTCJeremy, what about this slight change: 10 m m e c ? k c e m m 9 . . i e e e e i . . 8 . . . . . . . . . . 7 . . . . . . . . . . 6 . . . . . . . . . . 5 . . . . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . . . . 3 . . . . . . . . . . 2 . . I E E E E I . . 1 M M E C K ? C E M M a b c d e f g h i j E/e = Tripper 3-3 M/m = Conmuter 4-4 I/i = Threeleaper 3-0 C/c = Fourleaper 4-0 K/k = King ? = piece pendent to determine: another leaper? ...which?; would work there a nightrider or a queen?; why not an alfil/dababa that is also a leaper [2-2, 2-0]? Jeremy Good wrote on 2009-09-28 UTCBy playing 1. h1-e4, White threatens to check Black, either at h7 or b7. This forces an immediate response from Black to free the King from being trapped in a smothered mate. Then, Black can not escape check on move 2 should White choose to exercise that option. This state of affairs may indicate a design flaw. Either it might give White an extra advantage (more than first move priority) or it might restrict the nature of opening possibilities too much. If so, perhaps it's possible to remedy the problem with slight changes in the opening setup. If the inventor were present, I might ask her what were some considerations she utilized in creating the aesthetic for the opening setup she chose, so as to stay true to her 'original intent'... Roberto Lavieri wrote on 2006-06-19 UTCExcellent ★★★★★I agree Jeremy Good wrote on 2006-06-18 UTCExcellent ★★★★★One of the most original and ingenious games of recent memory. I'm rating this game excellent, but only because there isn't a category for outstanding. You probably will want to try it out to understand its appeal. Watch what zillions does with it and then play it on chess courier. Joe Joyce wrote on 2006-05-08 UTCYou madwoman! The 'great Joe Joyce' indeed. You're embarrassing me. I thought I was great, grand and Atlantean. ;-) I never could take a compliment. Enjoy. Joe Joyce wrote on 2006-05-08 UTCThanks. I have to share credit with my son and Fergus, though. Hope you enjoy it. Luck. Joe Christine Bagley-Jones wrote on 2006-05-08 UTCthanks to the great Joe Joyce, here is a link to play sky on game courier /play/pbm/play.php?game%3DSky%26settings%3DSky Christine Bagley-Jones wrote on 2006-01-14 UTCi can't find the 'root-66' anywhere :) Doug Chatham wrote on 2006-01-06 UTCMe, I'm waiting for someone to get their kicks from a 'root-66' :-) Christine Bagley-Jones wrote on 2006-01-06 UTChi andy. actually, it was your american chess that brought my attention to the squirrel, i had not noticed it before then ... and i love it :) pretty strong piece though, strong as rook easily. It could only be in sky as a replacement for rook or alternate option to promote to (fiveleaper -> rook or squirrel) Sky is a game for wacked out leapers that normally don't see many games. I had to make 'no pawns' for this game to work, and promotion rule. anyway, if i do another variant, for 'root 65 and 85' leapers, knight and squirrel could sneak in i guess. now if someone asks me 'what about the alfil' .. :)) Andy Thomas wrote on 2006-01-05 UTChi christine, how about the squirrel piece? (like a colonel in american chess)... 2-0,2-1,2-2 Christine Bagley-Jones wrote on 2006-01-04 UTCDavid, thanks for info on Rose. i did not realise it was such a strong piece, and more complex and interesting that i originally thought. i agree that the 'half rose' is probably more practical. Jared, thanks also for your info on 65 leaper. Not sure what your sorry about, am guessing that you think i will be disappointed it is in a game, but that is ok, i will live with it :) i'll check out leaping bat chess, thanks again to you both for info. Jared McComb wrote on 2006-01-04 UTCThe root-65 leaper is known as the Bat in Leaping/Missing Bat Chess. Sorry. David Paulowich wrote on 2006-01-04 UTChttp://www.chessvariants.org/other.dir/nachtmahr.html 'A Study Game with Seven Different Nightriders in It' by Jörg Knappen. The Rose is nightrider number 2. I get nervous around a piece that can make a null move (all the way around the circle back to its starting square) and also can require as many as four(!!!!) pieces to block a check. So I much prefer the Half-Rose, a circular nightrider making from one to four leaps. The Half-Rose has the same movement diagram as the Rose, but without the redundant move capability. My 2004-09-02 Comment on the Piececlopedia page for the Rose has more to say about the half-Rose. Christine Bagley-Jones wrote on 2006-01-04 UTCaww come on, now you are making me feel guilty not adding the knight lol :) The goal of Sky was to create a game for these 'generally not seen in games cause of their long leap' pieces (he he). Still, where is the knight .. well, since i released Sky, i have put together the 'root-65-leaper' (8-1), (7-4) and the 'root-85-leaper' (9-2), (7-6). I doubt these pieces are in any game. It would be interesting to see these leapers play, but i'm too happy with the game as it is to change, but i could make a new variant for these 2 leapers, and maybe the knight could sneak in with them :) One piece i would love to see in action, but i doubt i could code this piece in, is the 'Rose'. I don't know if this piece is in a game, you would think it would be, but i havn't seen, anyway, if anyone could help with that then that would be awesome. (update) Ralph Betza's 'Chess on a Really Big Board' has the Rose, i just noticed, no zrf it seems though Tony Quintanilla wrote on 2005-12-30 UTCGood ★★★★Looks like a fun game. I'd like to try it. The idea of promotion being integral to the middle game is interesting. Also, the idea of the Rook complementing and, eventually, replacing the leapers is neat and insightful. One thing: what happened to the faithful Knight? As David points out, with Overby's Beastmaster Chess, leaper chess is becoming a genre! Christine Bagley-Jones wrote on 2005-12-29 UTCYes i agree, people should be able to name pieces as they see fit. For Sky i tried to use names that seem the most commonly used. 'All the King's Men' site gives all leapers in Sky except the Flamingo and Lancer, with no reference to a 6-1 and 4-2 leaper. I had never seen the names 'tripper' and 'commuter' before, but these names are also given at 'knights tour notes' site, along with the lancer, on this page here http://www.ktn.freeuk.com/9a.htm#(3) it also has other pieces names mentioned here that are interesting. i found the name 'flamingo' from this site here. anyway, lol, that is why there are boring names like 'threeleaper' and 'fourleaper' etc etc :) oh here is 'All King's Men' which is a glossary of chess pieces from the British Variant Chess Society http://homepage.ntlworld.com/gpjnow/VC-GM.htm David Paulowich wrote on 2005-12-26 UTCThis interesting game contains a variety of unusual leapers. Michael Howe's Universal Chess calls the (3,3) leaper 'Jerboa' and the (0,3) leaper 'Lark', but these names did not catch on. Glen Overby's Beastmaster Chess is another variant with many leapers, including the 'Wyvern', a combination (3,3) and (4,2) and (5,1) leaper. Christine: to continue an old conversation of ours: the Piececlopedia has entries for the 'Carpenter' (D+N) and the 'Kangaroo' (A+N). 25 comments displayedLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ EarlierPermalink to the exact comments currently displayed.