Rated Comments

Thanks a lot

This is a fantastic game and one that I regularly enjoy playing both with friends or on my own. When playing on my own I change clothes after each move, speak in a different accent and have a different personality/backstory to give the appearance of separate players. Anyway I digress, a fantastic game, enjoy.

It says KisO4 in the list, which is correct, but I didn't update that one. I had guessed that it defaulted to that based on the board size. But I didn't put the king on the board either - it starts there (if that matters.)

I updated those values and now castling works correctly too.

This is VERY impressive. It is now possible to make presets for typical variants with no writing of GAME code at all. Thank you for making this!

I once had a CV of my invention (Wide Chess) gently criticized for my adding to the standard chess army of each side (on a 12x8 board) 4 pawns, plus two pairs of leapers that were somewhat similar to each other, in that they both had an alfil movement as part of their powers. Namely, it was thought said leapers weren't divergent enough from each other.

In the case of (10x8) Royal Court, a pair of leapers plus 2 pawns is added to the army of each side. The leapers have the same movement powers as knights, plus they can also move like a man (often called the Centaur compound). So, I can see how this addition of leapers to the standard chess army might be gently criticized, too (at least they are very powerful leapers, which might relieve any perception of slight redundancy).

Recently I had a couple of ideas of my own about adding pair(s) of fairly knight-like minor pieces to the FIDE army, although I may have rejected these ideas too quickly, partly due to the previous critique (of my Wide Chess). Namely the ideas involved adding either a pair of fibnifs and/or a pair of horse(mao)-wazir compound pieces (depending on the board size I would use). Besides Wide Chess not yet proving popular on Game Courier, I'd add another inhibition I have is that I've seen very few examples on this website of the FIDE army plus pair(s) of pieces added to them, where the pair(s) were not strikingly divergent in some way from other piece type(s) used in the chosen armies. Indeed, Wide Chess and Royal Court are more or less the only counter-examples I've noticed.

https://www.chessvariants.com/piececlopedia.dir/fibnif.html

https://www.chessvariants.com/piececlopedia.dir/mao.html

The design of this game makes no sense to me. The Rook is upgraded to a Dragon King. The Knight is upgraded all the way to an Amazon. The Queen is upgraded to the most powerful piece I have ever heard of. But the poor Bishop is downgraded to a Wazir - a piece that moves only one step horizontally or vertically. One problem is that the board has so much power that it will be a tactical smash-fest. Another problem is that the Wazirs will never move. I cannot imagine any circumstance in which a player would waste a move on them, except possibly to get them out of the way to allow castling, and probably not even then. With all the nightriders, castling will likely be impossible anyway.

This is an excellent chess variant, and is one of my favorites. I think it plays better than either of the games from which it is derived. The starting position is carefully considered, allowing a wide variety of different openings.

The rook should still be worth slightly more than the bishop on this board but it is very close. I performed the mobility calculation. With a 30% board occcupancy, the rook's average mobility is 9.8 whereas the bishop's is 9.2. And the mobility of the rook increases faster than that of the bishop as the board clears out.

This page is 100% going to crash soon due to traffic from SUSD viewers!

Very similar to Wagner Chess: https://github.com/brianthetall/wagnerChess

You should be able to do this by defining Pawn and Ferz as the first two pieces, setting maxPromote=2, promoZone=1, and promoChoice=W (assuming W is the ID of the War Elephant). It might still want you to indicate the 'choice' by clicking on the War Elephant in the table (which will then be highlighted in blue). But it only requires a choice when the table is opened anyway. If the table is closed it always promotes to the default piece, which is the first ID of the promoChoice string. If there is never any choice, there is no reason to open the table.

The Play-Test Applet doesn't offer an opportunity to specify a maxPromote parameter different from 1. In western Chess variants it is very rare that there is more than one promoting piece, and in the cases I knew the promotion rules for the non-Pawns are then often special. (E.g. more Shogi-like, where there is a fixed promoted form.) The Play-Test Applet has no provision for defining Shogi-type promotions (which would be controlled by the diagram parameters maxPromote and and promoOffset, rather than promoChoice.)

Such mixed promotion rules are not really supported by the Diagram proper; the Diagram can be augmented with a user-defined JavaScript function WeirdPromotion to handle such cases. This is what I used for Chess and a Half: as far as the Diagram is concerned only Pawns promote, and it enforces the promoChoice setting on those. Promotion of the other pieces is handled by having WeirdPromotion recognize when they should promote, and return the promoted version in that case. I also use that for implementing 'contageon' in Maka Dai Dai Shogi.

It is always a hard call what to include in an interface to keep it user-friendly; I don't want to deter prospective users with an enormous list of options they would almost never need.

I have been thinking for how the need for using a custom WeirdPromotion script could be reduced. I could for instance introduce a parameter contageon that would decare a list of pieces that should be treated as contageous, and by default make royal pieces immune to that. (Or also introduce a parameter immune.) And I could make mixed promotions standard by having the Diagram obey the promoChoice parameter for the first piece (presumably Pawn) even when promoOffset is non-zero, if the promoChoice is non-empty or different from a single +.

I updated this page heavily...

• Added graphic of setup (was just ASCII)
• Updated intro to provide detail about chronology of invention
• Changed format to be more consistent with other game description pages
• Added information about Game Courier play/computer play
• Added interactive diagram

I've made several updates to this page. The HTML had a number of issues, (unclosed tags and the like), although they mostly weren't obvious to readers. I also reformatted it to better resemble our typical game descriptions and edited the text to be clearer. The Computer Play and Equipment sections have also been updated to reflect what is (and is not) currently available.

I will try to post a more in-depth review when I have some time to write one, but for now, suffice it to say this game plays very well and I do not hesitate to rate it Excellent.

I have 2 questions about the brouhaha squares:

1) What is the advantage of allowing a capture on a brouhaha square? Spontaneously, I find this strange: I understood that such a square hosts a piece until it is activated and enter into play, then the square disapears. Then, this square is not part of the play area really. So, I wouldn't have allowed a capture on it at all. Maybe there is something I don't see.

2) Why this name of "brouhaha" square? At least in French a brouhaha is a surrounding noise. Those squares are more like a fog, brouillard in French. Brouhaha/brouillard, is there a linguistic confusion there? 

Welcome to our two new editors. It's great to see some new blood. 

Next step : see some new blood in terms of contributors, not just editors, too. I'll try to find time to design a new variant or two myself, if I can get some letup from my 70-hours a week job, but I'd also love to see a lot more game designers get on board.

Great idea. I have always loved Fischerrandom Chess, but I really don't like the way it gives players no control over where their pieces start. I also consider Fischer's castling rule to be cludgy and it's hard to believe that a man of his genius came up with that. Your project fixes those shortcomings. 

One tweak I'd make if it were up to me is to require both players to enter ALL their pieces before making any other moves. White would enter a piece, followed by black, and they'd take it in turns to enter pieces, one at a time, until the first and eighth ranks were full. Of course, Bishops must be required to be on different coloured squares. 

Thank you very much. I have been able to upload all diagrams and the process was very lean. 

Yesterday, it was my mistake for the size limit. Instead of uploading the jpg diagrams I have made for my own website, I uploaded instead the source images coming from the board painting tool, which are much heavier. Thank you for your help.

The texts still says: The antelope is a (3,4)-jumper, i.e., it moves (with or without taking) four squares horizontally and five vertically, or five squares horizontally and four vertically.

It should be corrected as:

The antelope is a (3,4)-jumper, i.e., it moves (with or without taking) four squares horizontally and three vertically, or three squares horizontally and four vertically.

Btw, what is the name of the (2,4) jumper?

Pieces are never attacking friendly pieces or I miss something

That is the answer to my question. So if a virgin King is on h1, a black Bishop on h2, and a black Knight on g4, the King can move to h3. If his own Bishop was on h2 instead, he could not.

Some people would say pieces can attack the square a friendly piece is on. They obviously cannot capture it, but that doesn't necessarily mean the same thing as being attacked. E.g. when my King stands next to an enemy Pawn that is protected, does he attack that Pawn?

Personally this rule strikes me as quite illogical; to pass through a square it should be empty, and if you don't pass through it but jump over it, you shouldn't have to worry if you are attacked there. And I wonder how much this rule actually affects the game; it seems very hard to attack any squares next to the enemy King before he moves away to safety, as he starts buried behind 2 or 3 ranks of pieces. Especially if he can jump.

In general I like your variants a lot, because you do not only feature super-strong pieces (much stronger that Rook), but also Knight-class pieces. Most variants suffer from an over-abudance of Queen-class pieces. The middle of the strength spectrum is still a bit under-populated, though: almost none of the pieces is close to a Rook in value.

Looks great

I think this game is OK, but I do not care for the promotion rules.  The game does not have a queen, so promotion to queen would already be the strongest piece.  The amazon seems excessive and most games that feature that piece are not very good IMO.  The amazon attacks in 16 directions while the next strongest piece - the rook - only attacks four.

Thanks a lot. I didn't know about Lioness, very good.

Very good information! What is not clear for me at the moment if that Asakura shogi is a reconstruction of a possible step in the evolution of shogi, or if that form of game is really asserted and supported by historical proofs. I may ask a specialist that   I know. Thank you again.

I came on this page and I am horrified to read what I read.

"In H.J.R. Murray's History of Chess, page 181 states that the Alfonso manuscript was published in about the year 1211" >> no, not 1211! Murray wrote it right: 1283. 

"which on page 346 is said to have used algebraic notation, and to have described a chess variant that included the modern B and Q": not at all!
That chess variant wich used algerbric notation and modern move is another one, from India, written in Persian and dated 1796-8. It is reported quite clear in Murray page 181 for who has eyes to read!

Page 348, Murray gave a short description of Grant Acedrex from King Alfonso X.Today this is better known thanks to the PhD work of Sonja Musser. I worked a bit with her on this, this is reported in my book A World of Chess (McFarland, 2017). In few words: what was called Unicornio in medieval spanish was clearly a Rhinoceros. So the Rhino was a piece first jumping like a Knight, then going away like a Bishop.

It was the counterpart of another piece moving one step diagonal then moving away on rows and columns. That later piece is called Aanca in the manuscript. It's an Arabic word, not Spanish, designating a giant Eagle or prey bird, from oriental legends (able to carry elephants). This was mistakenly traduced by Gryphon by Murray. This is unfortunate as the Gryphon was a very different legendary animal. This is why I prefer to use the name of Eagle in Metamachy and not Gryphon to avoid replicating that mistake.
 

"Not described there is a piece which makes a one step Rook move and then continues outwards as a Bishop. For lack of a name, I'll call it the Aanca." 
No no no please! Aanca is the Giant Eagle, or the Gryphon if you want. Do not give that name of Aanca to a piece which is different and is more like the Unicornio / Rhinoceros. This is a very very bad idea. Stop adding confusion, I wish one is more careful when reading the work of Murray.

I don't usually like games with different armies, but this is an exception. You've put a lot of thought into making a game whose different armies are not unevenly matched. For sure, the Spartan side lacks a Queen and its army appears to be slightly less powerful, but that is compensated for by the presence of two kings, both of which must be checkmated/captured.