Check out Symmetric Chess, our featured variant for March, 2024.


[ 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 ]

Ratings & Comments

LatestLater Reverse Order EarlierEarliest
Quivira FontA desktop publishing resource
. Unicode, TrueType font containing historical chess piece characters.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Garth Wallace wrote on Sun, Sep 16, 2018 10:46 PM UTC:

This article is a bit out of date. Two additional blocks of chess symbols were added to its Private Use Area in version 3.2: "Private Use Area: Chess Symbols Extended-A" (consisting of various fairy pieces) at 0E140-0E17F, and "Private Use Area: Chess Symbols Extended-B" (consisting of compounds and 180 turned orthodox symbols) at 0E180-0E1AF.

The latest version of the font is 4.1, which is also presumably the final version as the site has not been updated in years.


On Designing Good Chess Variants. Design goals and design principles for creating Chess variants.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
🕸📝Fergus Duniho wrote on Sun, Sep 16, 2018 01:03 PM UTC:

After White's pawn takes the Queen and promotes to an Archbishop, Black has only four moves available. Two of these moves would expose it to capture without any significant consequence for White, and another would allow White to move the Archbishop to b8. The remaining move is to go to d7, checking the King. If White responds by taking the checking piece with either Archbishop, the resulting position is a stalemate. If White responds by moving the King, Black can take either Archbishop en prise. If White responds with a block on e6 from the Archbishop on e6, Black can exchange Archbishops. This might still be favorable for White. If Black takes the Pawn at b5 instead, White can still probably force an advantage. So, it looks like White could still win if the Pawn promotes to an Archbishop. The advantage of promoting to a Bishop is that White can win quickly and decisively. If the Archbishop moves to d7 for check, the Bishop can take it without causing stalemate. If the Archbishop makes its only safe move to c7, then the Bishop can safely check the King from b7, forcing the King to move to b8. The Archbishop can then move to d7 for checkmate.


Aurelian Florea wrote on Sun, Sep 16, 2018 12:13 AM UTC:

If your promote to a, after 1...ab8-d7 you can easily have 2.a c8-b7 with check and afterwards capture the enemy archbishop with your other one and then your are out of the woods :)!


Kevin Pacey wrote on Sat, Sep 15, 2018 08:22 PM UTC:

Here's a possible position from Seirawan Chess where White's best move is clearly 1.Pd7xc8=B, since promoting to an Archbishop instead would allow a possibe stalemate after 1...ab8-d7+, if White captured the enemy archbishop either way. Similar positions for other variants such as 10x8 Capablanca Chess could be dreamt up.


Aurelian Florea wrote on Sat, Sep 15, 2018 04:54 PM UTC:

@Fergus,

In the era of computer chess promoting to captured pieces does not seem that relevant anymore. Your Gross chess idea on promotion is great. I had saw it once, but forgot the game and author and somehat use it in apothecary (the promoting to different things part not the captured pieces part). In the meantime I had read it again.


🕸📝Fergus Duniho wrote on Sat, Sep 15, 2018 03:55 PM UTC:

If promotion is only to captured pieces, as in Grand Chess, then underpromotion enables promotion when there are no captured compound pieces to promote to.


Aurelian Florea wrote on Sat, Sep 15, 2018 11:41 AM UTC:

And being at the topic of promotion, I'd like to bring a discussion from this topic on. In CWDA I'm quite uncounfortable with pawns promoting to pieces from both starting armies (where the case). That is because well then the armies are less "different". The reason given by Betza is very sound. The pawns are then different and that difference should be accounted for. True. But for future CWDA if they are on larger boards (normally with more pieces) there is more room to optimize so different promotions for pawns would not be an issue !


Aurelian Florea wrote on Sat, Sep 15, 2018 06:38 AM UTC:

I am encouraging promotion to weaker pieces on earlier ranks (technically not underpromotion I guess) but I am not sure why this principle does not catch steam :)! To me it seems extra choice and that is always good provided there are not clear inconviniences. And I see none :)!


Gross Chess. A big variant with a small learning curve. (12x12, Cells: 144) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Aurelian Florea wrote on Sat, Sep 15, 2018 06:31 AM UTC:

About promotion from my experience with the two apothecary games which I have designed and I had the promotion rules similar (although at the time I have forgotten the exact game from where I had took the inspiration) most often the rook is the piece of choice because on rare ocasions the extra move actually worth it. HG pointed that first to me and I tend to agree. But it is much more fuzzy probably than him and me actually though about it initially. Probably here is the same thing. But for promotion extra on the side material 1 queen, 1 rook and 1 knigh would be more than enough.


On Designing Good Chess Variants. Design goals and design principles for creating Chess variants.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Kevin Pacey wrote on Sat, Sep 15, 2018 03:20 AM UTC:

I once figured out that it was okay to underpromote to a B or N instead of an Archbishop, if other type(s) of promotion caused a problem for some legal position(s) I dreamt up, in the case of my 10x10 Sac Chess variant, even, which has 10 possible piece types to promote to(!). Unfortunately, I didn't record the positions I thought of. If I think of examples of any of them later, I'll try to get around to posting them. In the case of avoiding a Chancellor promotion, for example, both a R or N promotion instead might still cause some sort of a problem that underpromoting to a B would avoid (though not if an Archbishop).


Greg Strong wrote on Sat, Sep 15, 2018 03:10 AM UTC:

I agree with this principle and believe it is indeed sometimes violated.  Take all the Capablanca variants.  They typically allow promotion to any piece (Queen, Chancellor, Archbishop, Rook, Bishop, Knight.)  The last three are pointless, however.  You might under-promote to avoid causing a stalemate, but if the Rook-move causes the stalemate you promote to an Archbishop.  If the Bishop-move causes the stalemate, you prmote to a Chancellor.  Otherwise you promote to a Queen.  David Paulowich first pointed this out and that's why his games do not include pointless underpromotions (and hopefully mine don't either.)


Kevin Pacey wrote on Sat, Sep 15, 2018 02:51 AM UTC:

It may be worth noting that in the case of variants where promotions occur, and then only on one rank (the last one!?), it would not be good game design to allow underpromotion to a given piece type, if there can never legally arise a position where the underpromotion would in some tangible way be a better move to play than promoting to a piece type of higher value. However, at the moment I cannot think of a game that would break this principle, assuming it's ever possible to do so.


Gross Chess. A big variant with a small learning curve. (12x12, Cells: 144) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Greg Strong wrote on Fri, Sep 14, 2018 09:33 PM UTC:

There was an error with the Average Mobility numbers - I have now updated the table.

The Average Mobility is a Betza Mobility Calculation with a board occupancy of 30%. Basically, for a piece that can only make a single step, the number of directions attacked and average mobility will be the same (as though the board was empty.) For each additional step in a given direction, though, the weight is that of the previous step multiplied by 0.7 (to approximate a 30% chance that the previous square was occupied.)


Kevin Pacey wrote on Fri, Sep 14, 2018 06:45 PM UTC:

@ Greg

I'm curious how you estimate/calculate average mobility, if it's fairly simple to describe. I do this myself as one step when calculating my estimate for a knight's value on the (typically) rectangular or square board used for a given chess variant, by figuring out (and adding up) the number of squares a N can reach on an empty board from every single square, then calculating the average number of squares a N can reach on the board, if it were placed on each square one at a time. In Gross Chess, for example, there are a lot of squares from which a N can reach either 8 or 6 squares. Fwiw, I didn't bother to work out the exact average just yet, but estimated it must be around at least 6 squares (out of the impossible to reach 100% full mobility score, or 8, max.) for a N on an empty Gross Chess board. This seemingly isn't compatible with your 4.89 score for the N, but it does seem it could match your Average Directions Attacked figure for the N. [edit: your mobility score for a pawn in Gross Chess is a clue that you're somehow taking into account the average number/positioning of enemy and/or friendly forces on the board, too, though in that case I still don't quite get why the Vao and Cannon mobility fields are left empty in your posted table.]

[edit: Otherwise I'd note that I have a Cannon as 1/2 the value of a R (as it is in Chinese Chess), and similarly I have a Vao as 1/2 the value of a B. I'd also note that much earlier in this Gross Chess thread, Mr. Paulowich gave his own estimates for the piece values.]


Greg Strong wrote on Fri, Sep 14, 2018 05:57 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★

This is an excellent game. I avoided it for a long time because I thought the large amount of power on the board would make it too difficult for me to deal with. It turns out I find it very playable, although it does require me to spend more time thinking before making a move for most of the game. Midgame positions can be exceptionally complex.

The opening starts out feeling nice and slow, as though the first 10 or so moves don’t matter too much. While I think it’s true that there is a very large amount of flexibility to how you can play the opening, those moves are still very important. At some point, typically around move 20, the game breaks open and becomes tactical and violent quickly. You want your pieces well-positioned when that happens. There is some contention for the e4/e9 and h4/h9 squares. All three of the light leapers – Champion, Wizard, and Knight – are good to develop early and all three are natural to develop to those squares, so you must choose which to develop there. I find that typically one of these three piece types doesn’t get developed in the opening before the game gets wild. I think it’s important to get the Vaos developed early. By the endgame, they are the weakest piece, but their low material value and ability to make long-range jumps gives them significant power to harass the heavier pieces as the game progresses. Developing the Vaos generally requires developing the Knights.

I like the promotion rules overall but the 14 extra pieces each player starts with in reserve seem unnecessary. There is tremendous carnage before any pawns are in a position to promote so lack of replacements is not an issue. The extra Queens are the only pieces that have any realistic possibility of being used.

Well-played games are typically nail-biters and the dynamic between the two players can reverse several times before it’s over. Having the momentum is very important – you want to be the one forcing the opponent to react, and the longer you can keep it that way, the more advantage you will accumulate.

My estimage of the piece values:

Piece Ave. Dir. Attacked Ave. Safe Checks Ave. Mobility Midgame Value Endgame Value
Queen 7.03 29.03 17.33 12.5 13.5
Marshall 9.78 24.44 15.79 10 11
Archbishop 9.47 16.81 13.76 8.5 9
Rook 3.67 18.33 9.68 6.5 7.5
Champion 9.78 6.11 9.78 6 6
Wizard 8.86 5.50 8.86 6 5.5
Bishop 3.36 10.69 7.65 5 5.5
Cannon          5 2.5
Vao          3.5 1.5
Knight 6.11 6.11 6.11 2.5 2.5
Pawn 1.68 0.00 1.68 1 1.25


Six Fortresses. Capture Fortress to releases free pieces to drop. Imposter Kings will complicate checkmates. (9x9, Cells: 81) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Anthony Viens wrote on Fri, Sep 14, 2018 07:22 AM UTC:

Interesting, ideas.  From a quick read of what I could see, it sounds somewhat long and drawn out.

Could we get the initial board setup uploaded?  It would greatly help comprehension.   :-)


Catapults of Troy. Large variant with a river, catapults, archers, and trojan horses! (8x11, Cells: 88) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Anthony Viens wrote on Fri, Sep 14, 2018 06:42 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★

This is one of my favorite variants on the site!  Very well done.  I like the concept of the river as a barrier, but you didn't stop with that as a gimmick.  You also made the piece types work with the river!  There is an archer to shoot over the water, the ram could be too powerful but the river hampers it's deployment, and a catapult to toss pieces....great job.

Now, there are a few things I would do different (imitation being the sincerest form of flattery, I may design a derivative) but there is only one thing I think is not designed very well.

Why do you have 5 ranks on each half of the board?  Xiang Qi also has 5, but the pawns start on the fourth rank.  Catapults of Troy's pawns start on the second rank, and don't have an initial double (or triple) step.  I would venture to say this makes pawn development very very slow.  

Which would be fine, except I see absolutely no benefit from it.  The river already has a huge damper on pawn development/attacks, so even if you wanted to limit pawn interaction in the game it's already redundant.  Not to mention, slowing the game (particularly the opening) down for no actual change doesn't seem like a good idea.
It slows down getting the bridge builder into position, it slows down getting the Trojan Horse into the action...it also makes developing the bishops really awkward....Honestly, it makes everything except the catapult sadly out of position.  I'm afraid the opening of Catapults of Troy would devolve into catapulting most of your pieces close to the river just to save 30 turns of development.
Frankly, I think there is so much empty space eliminating only one rank from each side would still play almost the same.  Slightly shorter opening, sure, but nothing else. 
Again, all this would be OK, except I see no benefit at all.  Just an unnecessarily stretched opening.

Am I missing something?  Please inform me, if so.
(Maybe you like a long opening!  That's OK.)

I would allow pawn double step and eliminate one rank per side, personally.  I think that would speed up the opening tremendously and lose nothing--maybe lower the importance of the Catapult a little bit, but at the moment Catapults look too central to moving pieces.

All that being said, this is STILL an excellent game.   I can handle an unnecessarily long opening, so long as the rest of it is great!  One of the best on the website!


Ideas for future of chess variants[Subject Thread] [Add Response]
Kevin Pacey wrote on Fri, Sep 14, 2018 05:37 AM UTC:

Somehow there might be a case for Chinese Chess lacking or mostly lacking in arbitrariness, which could fit into Fergus' thesis about any Next Chess candidate, as Chinese Chess is hugely popular (if possibly less so than chess). I think I'd have to strain myself a bit harder to figure out a plausible argument for why the considerably popular shogi (Japanese Chess) would also be lacking [at least mostly] in arbitrariness (that goes double for Chu Shogi), in view of the way the generals move seemingly so oddly, alone. At least by coincidence, shogi seems far less popular than Chinese Chess (or chess), though the real reason would seem to be that China has long had a much larger population than Japan.

If it's accepted chess is by far the most popular chess variant globally, I repeat I'd think any Next Chess would likely be some sort of extention of chess, though that could mean plausible candidates for such could be among the larger-board-size, different sliders and leapers crowd that H.G. has in the past expressed his disdain for, if nothing else due to his preference for ground-breaking variants. The latter may be becoming harder to come up with if they are of any quality, though, aside from that they may prove too complex rulewise at times for the average western grandpa or young child.


Gross Chess. A big variant with a small learning curve. (12x12, Cells: 144) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Kevin Pacey wrote on Fri, Sep 14, 2018 05:04 AM UTC:

For now I'd estimate the piece values in Gross Chess on average (or at least in the endgame) to be: P=1; V=1.9; N=2.6; CA=2.75; CH=2.8; W=3.4; B=3.75; R=5.5; A=7.4; M=9.1; Q=10.25; K's fighting value = 1.8.


Ideas for future of chess variants[Subject Thread] [Add Response]
Glenn Nicholls wrote on Thu, Sep 13, 2018 10:49 PM UTC:

I think there is a fair chance that Chess in its various forms is the world's most popular board game, or thereabouts, but if FIDE claim 600 million adults play Chess (and presumably they mean play Western chess regularly) they are claiming perhaps one in eight of the world's adult population do so - a big claim indeed.

Shaye Nicholls (pp Glenn Nicholls)


Aurelian Florea wrote on Thu, Sep 13, 2018 01:51 PM UTC:

@Fergus

I agree with you and I think the lesson to bear in mind is that we should aim for such things in future games. For example my probably only criticism to gross chess is the unchanged knight. You said once that that makes it more a defense piece because otherwise you lose turns in order to get the knight to go offensive. But nothing is exchangeable for knight, as the vao is likely weaker (this could not be true in the opening though). I tend to think natural knights for 12x12 could be LT (camel-treaper which is colourbound but has a nice distribution of destinations), ZH (zebra-threeleaper), CH (camel-treeleaper) and ZT (zebratreaper). The need 4 moves to exit the board starting in the oposite edge which makes them relatively "as" fast, but they are a bit more awkward to use. They are probably a bit stronger than 12x12 bishops as per increased forking power. Also they work differently with pawn chains. So maybe to get the chess feel you should allow pawns to always be able to go 2 squares to either move or capture with keeping en passant always :)!


Aurelian Florea wrote on Thu, Sep 13, 2018 01:35 PM UTC:

@HG,

By the way, technically the Chu shogi lyon has a knight move, even a enhanced one actually. But anyway the hippogonal pieces are are very basic thing to need to compensate for :)!


🕸Fergus Duniho wrote on Thu, Sep 13, 2018 01:18 PM UTC:

That the Knight is roughly equivalent in power to a Bishop was probably one of the factors that contributed to it being used in Chess. If the Knight were as weak as a Wazir or Ferz, it might have been replaced by a Knightrider, and if it were as powerful as an Amazon, it might have been omitted.


Game Courier Logs. View the logs of games played on Game Courier.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
🕸📝Fergus Duniho wrote on Thu, Sep 13, 2018 01:11 PM UTC:

That was due to a coding mistake I made yesterday. I replaced the count function with is_array($op1) && count($op1) instead of is_array($op1) ? count($op1) : 0, and the result was that the actual count was replaced with 1 whenever it was positive. I fixed that, corrected your log and its database entries, fixed the problem with posting here, and moved your comments from where you originally made them.


Kevin Pacey wrote on Thu, Sep 13, 2018 02:35 AM UTC:

Still cannot comment in the Game Logs thread. This time an error declared me winner in a game I didn't move in:

https://www.chessvariants.com/play/pbm/play.php?game=Modern+Shatranj&log=panther-cvgameroom-2018-248-220


25 comments displayed

LatestLater Reverse Order EarlierEarliest

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.