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 Earlier
Sissa. Move exists of moving a number of squares as rook and an equal number of squares as bishop.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Kevin Pacey wrote on 2017-09-14 UTC

For whatever they may be worth, I have (possibly original?) ideas for two Sissa-like pieces, for anyone's consideration:

1) 'Sissa-plus': moves EITHER n squares diagonally then n+1 squares orthogonally OR moves  n squares orthogonally then n+1 squares diagonally, PROVIDED in either case the Sissa-plus' path is not blocked at any point before the last square;

2) 'Sissa-minus': moves EITHER n squares diagonally then n-1 squares orthogonally OR moves  n squares orthogonally then n-1 squares diagonally, PROVIDED in either case the Sissa-plus' path is not blocked at any point before the last square. Note if n=1 then the Sissa-minus only moves just one square diagonally or else just one square orthogonally.


Kevin Pacey wrote on 2017-04-09 UTC

Thanks for the clarifications, Carlos.

Fwiw, for an 8x8 board, with values N=3.5 and R=5.5 (with Q=10) as per Euwe's values in the case of chess, I'd tentatively estimate the relative value of a sissa (at least in the later stages, with a near-empty board) to be approximately 10.36 (or 10.33, for the sake of using a nicer fraction). That's by my somewhat primative calculating methods. :)

Kevin


Carlos Cetina wrote on 2017-04-08 UTC
Kevin:

The answer is NOT because it is a slider whose move is composed by two stages: first like bishop followed like rook; or viceversa, first like rook followed like bishop; and those pieces are reached by two different paths.

For the sake of clarifying the matter I'm updating the diagram replacing the Rook by a Bishop because otherwise the Sissa would be pinned and then obviously it could not be moved except for capturing the Rook.

From c3, Sissa can reach the squares marked with green circlets by moving nightrider-wise; squares marked with red circlets are reached by moving rook-wise. 

The i6 square is reached by c3-f3-i6. The c3-f6-i6 path is obstructed by the Blue's King. Likewise, f9 is reached via c3-f6-f9, not by c3-c6-f9 that is obstructed by the Bishop.

c8 is reached via c3-h3-c8, not via c3-h8-c8 that is obstructed by the g8-Pawn; c1 is reached via c3-a1-c1 or via c3-a3-c1 but not by c3-e3-c1 nor c3-e1-c1 that are both obstructed by the d2-Pawn.

a2, a4, b5, d5 and e4 can be reached by moving either like Mao or like Moa; b1 only like Moa; d1 is inaccessible due to the obstruction of White's King and d2-Pawn.

Concluding, the Bishop can be captured by 4 paths: c3-e3-c5 or c3-e5-c5 or c3-a3-c5 or c3-a5-c5. The Queen can only be captured by c3-e5-e7 since c3-c5-e7 is obstructed by the Bishop.


Kevin Pacey wrote on 2017-04-08 UTC

A question about the movement diagram for this Piececlopedia entry, for the sake of absolute clarity: Can the sissa in the diagram capture the Black rook and queen as two parts of one and the same move? (I would think not).


Carlos Cetina wrote on 2016-09-18 UTC

Have a look to this nice website: www.jsvsissa.nl 


Carlos Cetina wrote on 2014-06-18 UTC
I want to emphasize that when initially conceived this piece in 1983 in the context of the Coherent Chess, did not give it any particular name; it was until 1998 when I named it as Sissa.

Carlos Cetina wrote on 2009-09-25 UTC

Claudio: The 'sub-sissas' you mention are possible.

I'm not sure if you understand sissa's move rightly or not. The direction of the second stage of the movement has no restriction regarding to the first. For instance, let's suppose the sissa is on d1 over a 10x10 board. If we move it first 3 squares like rook to d4, then the second stage NOW LIKE BISHOP can be in any of the four possible directions:

1) 3 steps towards g7, or
2) 3 steps towards a7, or
3) 3 steps towards a1, or
4) 3 steps towards g1.

If, viceversa, we move it first like bishop 3 squares to (say) g4, then the second stage NOW LIKE ROOK can be in any of the four possible directions:

1) 3 steps towards j4, or
2) 3 steps towards g7, or
3) 3 steps towards d4, or
4) 3 steps towards g1.

Hopefully some day you encourage to play a game of Cetran Chess 2 with me. Then you would see with a whole evidence that this piece is a true WONDER OF NATURE!

Receive a bear hug!


Claudio Martins Jaguaribe wrote on 2009-09-23 UTC
If I understood it right, and I think I did, the sissa can move foward and then backward, or vice-versa.

I'm not very fond of it, sorry. So, I'd like you to think about quarter and half sissa.

quarter-sissa can make n(W)n(F), but only foward, another quarter-sissa can make, foward only, n(F)n(W).

The half-sissa can make either move of the quarte sissa above, i.e., n(W)n(F) or n(F)n(W).

Hugs.

Gary Gifford wrote on 2008-06-09 UTC
It is ashame that the Bison is not mentioned in the nearby Sissa comment, where GWD hints at self admiration [due to the Falcon aspect.] After all, it is a fact that the Bison precedes GWD's patented Falcon and is nearly identical, though the earlier Bison movement is described in more simple terms.

George Duke wrote on 2008-06-09 UTCExcellent ★★★★★
I credit Carlos Cetina for having idea similar to Falcon at the same time I did. When mulling over Falcon in early 1990's, we thought in terms of ''similar to RNB but different from each.'' In 1996 Patent papers, the verb ''complements'' appears, and Aronson by 2003 in Complete Permuatation Chess refers to ''the complement'' of RNB. There can be only one such, just as within 5x5 from starting square, RNB mutually complete and complement one another. There can be no corresponding mathematical complement at 9x9 from a starting square, because the Knight's continuation on step two in same direction reaches border of 9x9. There is then no further solution at 9x9. So, the discovery has been that there are four fundamental Chess pieces, neither three nor five. Betza's atomic DFWA are actually flawed, though useful, building blocks, as they are merely foreshortened Rook and Bishop, and moreover ignore the natural Knight (with no clear path, ergo all paths: the jumper). Now Cetina practically has the idea here: Multi-path, mixture of Rook and Bishop, reach to oblique squares. Great work! Concision and coherence the hallmark of Latin American inventors generally: Lavieri, Kirsinger, Cetina. Whereas North American ''inventors,'' befitting their culture, tend to have extravagant, grotesque, half-playable CVs at best -- metaphorically like their own loud commercial art, trivial television, War-in-Iraq overkill, or overwrought state Capitalism itself -- harmful ecologically, deleterious intellectually, poetically trite. The last sentence would not be any final word, just spur-of-moment comparision, to pay sincere relative tribute here. Sissa, reduced to mininal conception instead, not board-wide, could actually have morphed into three-path Falcon.

10 comments displayed

Later Reverse Order Earlier

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.