[ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
Okay, I get it now. Thanks for your help, guys. It's a great idea but I'll have to try it out before I can give it a proper rating.
Michael Nelson's comment is correct, particularly regarding the recursive element. Recruitment is compulsory, so that (as stated in the list of possible move types) 'the question of neutral pieces capturing or checking recruited pieces never arises.'
Let me try restating the rule and Charles can either affirm I am correct, or he might think of yet another way to express the rule if I am wrong. 1. For the purpose of applying the recruitment rules, we pretend that a neutral piece can capture a non-neutral piece. 2. After moving a piece, the player who just moved may recruit any piece which is attacking a piece owned by either White or Black. 3. If rule two applies to multiple pieces, they can all be recruited. 4. Recruitment is applied recursively, so if a neutral piece which is not attacking a White or Black piece is doing so after a recruitment, that piece can be recruited also. Charles, is recruitment mandatory or is it legal for a player not to make a recruitment he is entitled to, either by intent or oversight? By the way, I think this is a fine game concept that deserves more exploration--I expect there are many ways to apply it in different game settings.
So basically, any neutral piece that is attacking any non-neutral piece becomes yours at the end of your turn?
Charles Gilman wrote on Sat, Apr 8, 2006 06:39 AM UTC:I am having trouble thinking how to express it any more simply. The questions to ask about each neutral at the end of a move are: (1) If this piece were White and it were White's move, could it capture any Black pieces? (2) If this piece were Black and it were Black's move, could it capture any White pieces? Any neutral for which the answer to either question is yes ceases to be neutral and becomes part of the army of whoever has just moved. The questions are asked again of remaining neutrals, with the same consequence for an answer of yes, and so on until the answer is no for all remaining neutrals. Then the other player moves. If this doesn't help Jared McComb, I will need to know exactly what he doesn't understand about this variant.
I don't get it. Could someone help explain this to me? A diagram or two would be helpful as well.
7 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.
Parton made Neutral King in 1953, where player has own orthodox pieces but the King is co-owned and
yet has to be checkmated. Simple and elegant. Most of Gilman's CVs are hurt by overcomplications in
piece-moves, odd board sizes, too many special rules, or attempt hybridizing Eastern chesses with forced
templates. Once in a while he strikes paydirt such as AltOrthHex idea of splitting up the hexagonal Rook
into two, though nobody has really done anything with that either.
Neutral Subject realizes that Parton's Mutator has wider applicability. Here player only has King and Queen to begin. Neutral pieces get moved and then assigned to one side or the other. The criterion to assign is applied at end of each turn according to hypothetical attack of each 'Neutral' on any piece already assigned. Who wouldn't want more pieces rather than fewer? Many other CVs could be made in this genre of the pieces on board not belonging to either army initially.
Charles' novel CV invention, expanding on Parton, gets somewhat awkward explanation in his essay. Like Aronson and Howe with Rococo, great idea is not followed up with clear summary fully disambiguating.
Still in all, there could be other ways to set up the bazaar of recruitment to build the forces in subvariants and new CVs this type of possible breakthrough Mutator.