[ 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 ]Rated Comments for a Single ItemLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ Earlier Magna Carta Chess. Black has the FIDE array, White has a Marshal and an Archbishop instead of a Queen and King. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]George Svokos wrote on 2009-11-06 UTCExcellent ★★★★★Given that John Plantagenet was a fighting king of his era, it is likely he had equestrian skills. Perhaps, to even out the different armies (though I can't really tell if one army has an advantage over the other,) the CV should show the king as an equus rex/crowned knight to give him more mobility and fighting power. George Svokos wrote on 2009-11-04 UTCExcellent ★★★★★I really like the 'direct mate' rule for this CV. Its different than most games, and the historic aspect and notes also make the game quite interesting. The historic aspect gives the game an added dimension together with the direct mate rule. It's hard to say whether white or black has an advantage as I have both won and lost games playing white (Marshal and Archbishop.) The game therefore seems relatively well balanced given the different armies. I think the Marshal+Archbishop is a good match for King+Queen in the current array. George Duke wrote on 2008-12-19 UTCGood ★★★★Gilman has some CUA CVs we ask naturally and earnestly, ''Are they balanced.'' After MatS are CUAs by Ralph Betza. Any team near FIDE value of 40 points could be lined up on 8x8 against FIDE team quasi-realistically. Sometimes it will tilt to the intruders, and sometimes to FIDE Army. With all the time in the world, we could try every combination dually. Despite so much work put into it -- CUA, CDA -- by Ralph, starting 30 years ago, probably it was a disservice; and yet I rate CUA among the top 50 CVs; it should or could have closed out an era. Instead I call CUA-CDA an usherer and harbinger of meaningless over-proliferation. Now called CDA, for all the effort at pinpointing piece values, certainly there are still subtle differences and imbalances, always. If any Army were played 500 times, the score would be 259-241, imbalanced (within a statistical margin or error), say Colourbound Clobberers vs. Cylindrical Cinders. Whatever and whenever, but credit Magna Carta for its nice theme. My last comment here 21.July.2007, year and half ago, tolerates Gilman's anti-monarchist leanings. Instead of NO KING, we implore Gilman just to rename them, backwards so as to meet competing interests, NIK and NEEQ, king and queen backwards, Nick and Neek and keep them both on the board, normally, only with their different names to suit. George Duke wrote on 2004-03-20 UTCExcellent ★★★★★One of first Chess-Unequal-Armies games is described by Martin Gardner in Scientific American column in mid-20th century. It has Maharajah (same as Amazon) alone versus standard side of sixteen pieces. Then come Ralph Betza´s CUA games. Here is a logical CUA try with standard compounds; its creativity lies in having, in effect, two Kings per side: a K-Q pair as such vs. Ma-C pair as such, their different movements the 'Unequality,' not so mind-boggling as when all pieces unequal. Worthwhile elementary idea. Daniel Roth wrote on 2003-10-04 UTCGood ★★★★To 1 and 2: These versions are nearly similar but: The version 1 makes black still stronger than white. The version 2 is clearly weaker than version 1 in the case the Goldrider is no defensive piece. If white plays well he will get behind the Goldrider and then it is much easier to win for white. To 3: This variant looks much better for me but there are still issues in the case if black pawns can be promoted to Viceace or not. If they can then it would get very easy for black to win. If they can not then black have lesser useage of the pawn promotions and this counts for promotions into king too. To 4: This sounds the best way. Add knight move to the king and make both retain and be promotable from pawns. Antoine Fourrière wrote on 2003-10-04 UTCGood ★★★★Well, King John was himself replaced by his infant son in 1216. Doesn't it open the way to a calibrated number of (King-moving? Wazir-moving? Firz- moving?) Princes, which could act as substitutes, instead of a Queen? Maybe the French provinces call also for a second 4x4 (5x5?, 3x3x3?) board, with a crossing of the Channel which would take a delay of two or three turns... (3x3x3 is of course debatable, even if it allows your Duke, but shouldn't there be different laws regarding succession in England and in France?) Roberto Lavieri wrote on 2003-09-30 UTCGood ★★★★(RN, BN) vs. (rb,kn) seems to be a good alternative. The game must be balanced in this way. Daniel Roth wrote on 2003-09-30 UTCGood ★★★★A much better way to balance it is to add N to the black king. This result in white RN + BN vs black RB + KN Roberto Lavieri wrote on 2003-09-17 UTCGood ★★★★The game play is strange. I have tried the game last night twice against Zillions. I could win with black with kamikaze attack, in a game full of 'taking back' from my part, trying to analize it. My impression is that white´s advantage is difficult to use completely, because the possibility of mad attacks from black against the objective pieces, without being careful on material. I think that, surprisingly, black has an advantage in this unusual game. 9 comments displayedLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ EarlierPermalink to the exact comments currently displayed.