[ 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 Ramayana Chess. Chess variant inspired by the Ramayana epic. (Cells: 84) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]George Duke wrote on 2009-02-23 UTCExcellent ★★★★★Let's go deeper. Buddha of Ramayana of course is in fact ''Rook-all'' you notice I sought from Chatham and Paolowich at Joyce's ''Shatranj Values'' 12.July.2008. Gilman, myself, et al. forgot, whereas ask mid-term prolificist type in Joyce's camp where are FAN and WDN, that Betza defined long ago, and he simply won't tell you. (Joe Joyce knew perfectly well Kozune's (2005) Zune and Kone are his reuses, and such practice explains their irrelevance.) Now the important points follow: that the leaping Rook-all/Buddha here (1,2)(1,3)(1,4)... indeed helps fit the needs of the Ramayana Indic Ocean Archipelago. I sought Rook-all back there to denigrate Bison (2,4)(3,4). ROOK-ALL/BUDDHA IS TO ROOK AS BISON IS TO FALCON! Anyone acquainting with (2,4)(3,4) arrival squares immediately recognizes understandable patented Bison drearily as the least interesting possibility. By contrast all the multi-path alternatives of Falcon are intriguing: OSPREY, CROW(one-path), MERLIN, RAVEN, MARSH HAWK, FERRUGINOUS, MAN-0-WAR of ChessboardMath6 or any sliding modality combining Rook- and Bishop-style. The Ungulate, being further useless in pawn enhancement, yet like Buddha/Rook-all would have arcane application in oddball boards and win conditions (John Smith's versatile point at new Ender's Chess). The minimax solution for distinguishment among R, N, and B, respecting all of the arrival squares, has their enabler in full-stop (2,4)(3,4) spaces however arrived at. I well remembered Rook-all but honestly not sure whether ''Bishop-all'' (2,2)(3,3)... has ever been tried before here. Reject it out of hand (for other than holed-boards), the evil brilliant Raksasha, and Bishop-all is sure to become someone's vested interest. Campos answers another Frequently Asked Question: ''First choose one of the pieces you own adjacent to the Raksasha. Then make a Raksasha move (an x,x jump). The piece you chose is now removed from the board.'' With comprehension, highly original Ramayana(2002) begins to look like one of the better conceived, as follow-ups investigate. George Duke wrote on 2009-02-20 UTCGood ★★★★No more forgotten than the game Ramayana are two questions in earlier comments year 2004, those of Amin (seriously wanting ''ten thousand dozens'') and Charles Gilman. Actually Gilman has several, one ''Which is correct as an element of the Develapa move -- Camel 1:3 (2,4) or Giraffe 1:4 (2,5)?'' Gilman's nomenclature now bears misleadling year 2007 origination mostly, but they were really begun in 2003, concurrent with his asking at Ramayana here about potential piece names from Indian religion -- the harbinger of the rest of Man & Beast 01: Constitutional Characters to ''M&B 21: LHEE.'' Then he was only at ''03 From Ungulates Outward.'' The encyclopaedic cataloguing itself needs to be catalogued. It becomes reminiscent of British colonial records still housed in warehouses at India to be archived. One speculates, in first approximatation, there may average 50 new pieces or names or compounds per article, and so 50*21 over a thousand pieces, along that route including at least 15%-25% new inventions, however obscurantist, never undertaken to be named or thought of before. Thanks Charles. The FAQs of Luiz Carlos Campos clarify rules of Ramayana. For follow-up, how do the Soma Cube-like partial board squares integrate with the rest of the Ramayana system? (Hint: think leaping) A FAQ is ''Does the Rakshasa ever move by itself?'' Answer: ''No. Neutral pieces don't have moves of their own.'' 2 comments displayedLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ EarlierPermalink to the exact comments currently displayed.