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
Royal FuryA Zillions-of-Games file
. A Futuristic Chessery Game - relaxed win rules.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Larry Smith wrote on 2009-07-09 UTC
I should have said that the Immobilizer of Ultima might be considered a 'near-sighted' Gorgon. :)

Mark Thompson wrote on 2009-07-09 UTC
Ultima was also written up by Martin Gardner in his Scientific American column sometime in the 1960s, and became fairly widely known from that. What inspired what is mainly of historical interest, but also might direct people who are interested in games like Ultima or Maxima to check out Royal Fury.

John Lawson wrote on 2009-07-09 UTC
I became a chess variantist in 1962, so yes I know how hard information was to find in the olden days.

Bob Abbott published a paperback book 'Abbott's New Card Games', Funk and Wagnalls, $0.95, in 1963, containing the rules to Ultima, so the possibility of cross-fertilization is there.  I happen to have two copies.

But does it matter really?  I see no reason to be concerned with 'primacy'.  They are different games, inspired by an idea that could occur to anyone.

Larry Smith wrote on 2009-07-08 UTC
Okay, Royal Fury resembles Ultima. |-]

Though did either game really have contact with the other? Chess variants, at that time, were not so widely published. Though many Chess Clubs had either newsletters, or collections, which featured many variants.

The Mimotaur of Royal Fury and the Chameleon of Ultima seem to be the only piece in common. Though the Immobilizer of Ultima might be considered a short-range Gorgon.

John Lawson wrote on 2009-07-08 UTC
According to the 'Classified Encyclopedia of Chess Variants', Royal Fury is dated 1972, and Ultima is dated 1961.

Larry Smith wrote on 2009-07-08 UTC
I believe that Royal Fury pre-dates Ultima.

So might it best be said that Ultima resembles Royal Fury? ;-)

Mark Thompson wrote on 2009-07-08 UTC
It's interesting how much this game resembles Ultima: the major pieces are differentiated by how they capture rather than how they move. The fantasy piece-names might be well adapted to creating armies from those expensive little figurines they sell in many game stores.

Larry Smith wrote on 2006-10-12 UTC
I have been considering the strict goal conditions of this game.

The rules state that if both players have lost a Fury that this is a draw.
Which means that once a player has lost a Fury, the draw is the only way to
avoid a loss.

But in the game there are several pieces which have the capability of
capturing more than one piece during a turn. What if a player, who has
lost a Fury, is able to capture both of the opponent's Furies during a
single turn?

8 comments displayed

Later Reverse Order Earlier

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.