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 Earlier
Way of the Knight. Pieces with experience levels: a `role playing variant'.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Daniil Frolov wrote on 2010-08-18 UTC
Here is preset:
There is no icon for camel-ferz-dababa compound, i used simple camel.

George Duke wrote on 2010-08-17 UTC
The questioner restarting the Knightmate comments recently asks, ''What if Knightmate army is played against FIDE army?'' Betza's different armies are invented first during 1970s like Knightmate. Different Armies make a legitimate new Cluster, credited as Betza origination, there being few prior examples; couple of precursors include Maharajah and arguably even 18th-century Odds chesses. Way of the Knight is another Betza different-armies method CVPage put up fifteen years ago before Chess Different Armies itself, once called Chess Unequal Armies. Like Betza's Nemeroth, forgotten Way of the Knight gets referred to by Betza maybe more than anyone else has read or played the mutants of this article. The main difference is that Way of the Knight players develop their own differentiated armies somewhat by choice in play. It is apparent how spinoffs, creative Pocket Mutation for one, occur from the Way of the Knight.

Sam Trenholme wrote on 2003-01-09 UTC
OK, now that I have fixed all of the bugs in the .zrf, I have had a chance to extensively playtest the game. <p> One of the first things I have noticed is that it does not have as much clarity as normal chess. In other words, it is more difficult to visualize the tactics, because the pieces change as they are capturing pieces in a capturing sequence. <p> Another thing I have noticed is that an improvment is not necessarily better. For example, I really do not feel that the Bishop + Knight-rider ('Paladin') is better than a queen. And a rook is probably not better than the improved knight or bishop. <p> Endgames are more difficult to play because pawns promote to far weaker pieces. This will make endgames even longer and dryer than they are in ordinary chess. I also think they will make the game more drawish, since WOTN does not have Chess's ability to quickly stop any of the opponent's pawns which are about to promote once someone gets a queen. Then again, pawns promote more quickly, promoting on the sixth instead of the eight rank. <p> One variant I have created in the .zrf file is one where a piece does not improve by capturing another piece. Instead, all improvments are done by entering the enemey camp on the board. A pawn which gets to the fifth rank or higher improves; a Squire (Wfd) or Deacon (AN) which gets to the sixth rank or higher improves; a Knight or Bishop which gets to the seventh rank or higher improves; and, finally, a Jarl (NW) or Vicar (DB) which gets to the eight rank improves to a rook. This minimizes the clarity problems which WOTN has, simplifies the rules, while preserving the idea of experience gaining which WOTN has. <p> This variant of WOTN has the 1. h4 2. h5=Squire(Wfd) 3. Sxh7=N 4. Nxf8/Jarl (NW)+ 5. Rxh8 opening trap; 1.h4 has to be replied to with 1... h5. This weakens the kingside, which results in more tactical games. <p> - Sam

gnohmon wrote on 2002-03-27 UTC
I am ever so happy to hear that somebody has played and enjoyed the game. Of course, it is not my greatest artistic achievement, but it is one of the earliest examples of what sort of variants can be designed with different armies, and of how the theory of piece values can help the designer of a chess variant. My own experience with different armies is that it's a lot more fun. One player believes that his R is worth more than the other player's NW, the other player believes the NW is actually better, and both fight to prove their ideas are better. <p>Your odds-giving idea is excellent. I had some discussions of odds-giving onmy scs pages, but those are long since lost; perhaps I should revisit the idea. <p>If you have played Go, you will appreciate how much a comprehensive system of odds-giving can add to a game, and you will appreciate that Chess (including chess variants) would be much better if there were a generally accepted system for it. <p>Unfortunately, the value of an extra Pawn (for example) depends on the average strength of the two opponents, and therefore it is probably not possible to have a comprehensive system at this time. <p>Instead, you have used the progressive-odds system, which is self-adjusting and which has always been known to be well-suited to a long series of games between the same two opponents -- a perfect choice. <p>Continue to enjoy!

4 comments displayed

Later Reverse Order Earlier

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.