Latest Ratings and Comments
I am not an editor here, so my words carry no official weight. But I think the article is annoyingly verbose and digressing. E.g. the introduction section contains no information related to the variant at hand other than the e-mail address of the author (which people can already get from the author's profile) and two external links. The remaining 85% discusses the history of Chess, what other chess variants the author likes etc. I don't think an article about a specific chess variant is the proper place for that.
Dwelling on the obvious, such as "The unique units seen in chess variants are called fairy pieces" is just diluting the information one would be interested in. OTOH, in the Setup section it would be more useful to write the coordinates of the starting squares of the pieces, rather than their number. Most readers will likely be able to count, but it would be nice if they could unambigously associate the names with the images at that point. Although I admit that (perhaps with the exception of Prince / Princess) most images speak for themselves. But if the image is supposed to be selfexplanatory, why waste words on the fact that the pieces of a player occupy 3 ranks?
There doesn't seem any need to explain what e.p. capture is, and why it was introduced during the evolution of chess to its current orthodox form. Scrolling through pages and pages of diagrams containing only information everyone knows is pretty annoying. Most articles on CVP would simply state "King, Queen, Rook, Bishop and Pawn move as in orthodox Chess, including the initial 2-step move for the Pawn and e.p. capture". The same applies to castling, where if you want to be truly elaborate you could still mention that the King moves 2 squares towards the Rook, if you think "moves the same as in orthodox Chess" was too difficult to understand. This would get rid of 17(!) diagrams, and gets the reader to the interesting stuff immediately.
There isn't any need to explain what checkmate or stalemate means. Spending a diagram (3 times!) for illustrating what you mean by "adjacent square" also seems overdoing it.
Typographically, the article now uses headers for the descriptions of the individual pieces of the same 'level' as those used site-wide for the article's main sections (Introduction, Setup, Pieces, ...). While they are all supposed to be sub-sections of the Pieces section. There is an extra redundant header "Unit Moves and Captures", which repeats what "Pieces" is already supposed to convey. Rules and Notes sections seem to be missing entirely; one would have expected description of the check / checkmate / stalemate (if it would have to be given at all) to appear in the Rules section, not in the description of the King's moves. Other draw conditions than stalemate (repetition, 50-move) are now not mentioned at all. It would probably suffice just to mention that all these rules are the same as in orthodox Chess.
As to the variant itself: it always saddens me when people use a well-established piece name (such as Griffon) for another piece. As if there isn't already enough confusion.
When a Sorceress, Mage or Archmage swap a Pawn to last rank, does that Pawn promote? Does the swapped Pawn count as having moved? Would a Pawn swapped back to 3rd rank regain its two-step move? BTW, it also seems a bit superfluous to have practically the same diagram for illustrating the swapping in 3 places. It would be better to discuss the swapping once (e.g. in the rules section), and then just refer to that from the descriptions of the pieces that can do this. It is not clear to me why the description of the swap has two side-by-side diagrams. On supposes that the second diagram shows the position after the swap, but then it is illogical that it still has an arrow in it. I would think that a single diagram with a two-way arrow would suffice. In general people can be expected to mean what 'swap' means, so devoting a diagram is already quite generous.
My submission for the rules of ArchMage Chess are ready for review and publication. Please let me know if there are any changes to the page you would like me to make.
Very Heavy Chess. A lot of firepower with all compounds of classical chess pieces.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]On the topic of piece names, I've noticed that in some languages the name for a chess rook translates to ship (or to boat, also). Thus 'Admiral' (or my choice of 'Sailor', in Sac Chess) gets bonus points as a choice of name, perhaps (for the piece type in question, a promoted rook in shogi), i.e. a person who uses a watercraft's power.
Maybe there's a slightly related argument that a real-life knight, in the past, is a person who uses a horse (arguably knight is a more elevated title than horseman, which would also work).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rook_(chess)#Name_translations
Parahouse. Shogi + Strong pieces. (9x9, Cells: 81) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Wild Tamerlane Chess. Game Courier Preset to play Wild Tamerlane Chess, a fury on 11x11 board. (11x11, Cells: 121) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]This page is done too. It sends to a Game Courier preset with enforced rules for Wild Tamerlane. It could replace an existing page with the same title, https://www.chessvariants.com/play/wild-tamerlane-chess, which points to a Game Courier Present not coded with no rules enforced.
Thanks
Wild Tamerlane Chess. A clash on a 11x11 board with pairs Queens and Eagles/Gryphons. (11x11, Cells: 121) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]This page is done. I believe it can be opened up for the public. Thanks.
Hegemonia. Shogi + Janggi.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Sign in to the Chess Variant Pages. Sign in to the Chess Variant Pages.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I can receive emails from the site just fine. The problem is there's no way to get it verified.
Although I couldn't receive the required email, I cheated by looking at the undelivered email sent to chessvariants.com. Using the code provided in that email, I was able to verify my email address after I fixed some bugs in the change_password.php script. Basically, I had misnamed some columns by reversing the order of the two words composing their names. So, if you can get the email, you should now be able to verify your address.
When I tried to test the script for verifying email with my Yahoo address, I never got the email. Looking at email sent to chessvariants.com, I see an email about being unable to deliver this email. It will keep trying until it is five days old, which will be on the 18th. There is a similar email for you, as well as a subsequent one about your email being returned. It is looking like Yahoo Mail has stepped up its spam blocking, which is also blocking even more legitimate mail. Since this server runs on a VPS with a fairly unresponsive hosting company, I'm not sure what to do about improving our mail delivery. That is why I no longer require email verification for creating an account.
Sovereign Chess. Ten neutral armies can be activated on this 16 x 16 board. (16x16, Cells: 256) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Replies like this will be empty if replying using the wrong password, or if replying as a guest. The workaround is to create an account, log in, and be sure to use the correct password.
In my opinion, respect for the original doesn't matter when making a derivative of something (in this case, a chess variant). What matters most is to have fun designing it, and ideally, for others to have fun playing it as well.
Chess is not sacred, we do not need to protect it.
Sign in to the Chess Variant Pages. Sign in to the Chess Variant Pages.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I have specially created a Yahoo account for the verification of my email address. It happens exactly what Máté Csarmasz described before. The verification simply does not work. In my person information the Yahoo address is still declared as unverified.
Complementarity - Part I. With Short Range Project in mind, list of a highly specific set of pieces defined by simplest compounds.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]A while ago, I looked at 31 possible short range pieces. I have now expanded this research.
I have written a small C program which looks at all 16,777,215 possible leapers that move at most two squares. Some findings:
- I expected around half of all possible pieces to be colorbound in some way. Wrong. 16,452,080 (over 98%) pieces are not colorbound.
- There are 104 non-colorbound pieces with three moves, 2,512 pieces with four moves, and some 2,696,337 pieces with 12 moves.
- Only 2,944 possible pieces are Bishop colorbound: These relatively few pieces can go to the same 32 squares a Bishop can go to.
With some 16,452,080 non-colorbound pieces, if we replace the knight, bishop, and queen with a random non-colorbound short leaper, that gives us 4,453,099,898,116,838,912,000 which is, what, 4 hextillion possible variants, and that’s keeping the king, pawns, and rook.
OK, if that’s not enough possible variants, we can also add the ability for a given random piece to be able to be a rider in any direction it can leap (e.g. a fers-rider is our bishop; a wazir-rider is a rook, and a knight-rider is, well, a knightrider), where we randomly choose, from all the moves a given leaper has, for it to be able to ride in a random number of directions. For example, if we look at the wazir, then randomly choose which directions it moves like a rook and which directions it can only move one square, we get 16 possible pieces. If we do this for all 16,452,080 non-colorbound short range pieces, we get some 282,232,643,280 possible pieces, just over 2 to the power of 38 (2^38 or 2 ** 38 in Python notation).
This means an 8x8 board with random non-colorbound pieces and using a standard chess set has some 6,344,961,231,517,063,209,074,884,200,517,463,972,290,560,000 possible variants (the pawns and kings can keep their moves), just over 2 to the power of 152.
Sign in to the Chess Variant Pages. Sign in to the Chess Variant Pages.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]@Fergus,
I verified Máté's email address and set emailVerified in the database to 1 but I'm told he is still getting messages from Game Courier when making moves that his address is not verified. What am I missing?
Glinski's Hexagonal Chess. Chess on a board made out of hexagons. (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]The other preset seems to have a problem also. In this game the hexagon alignment switched from vertical to horizontal after the first move and won't go back.
Sign in to the Chess Variant Pages. Sign in to the Chess Variant Pages.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Hi Máté. I just sent you an email about this. We'll get you verified.
Hello @Fergus Duniho,
I can receive emails from the site just fine. The problem is there's no way to get it verified.
It didn't ask me to verify during the registration.
After registering, I found no menu where the verification was possible. The only way I found was clicking omn my own name in a game, getting here: https://www.chessvariants.com/who/csarmi
Now here I did have an option called "Verify Email" which takes me to this php: https://www.chessvariants.com/login/change_email.php?submit=Verify
It says this: Mail was sent from [email protected] to Máté Csarmasz
That does actually send me an email from [email protected] that contain a link like this (I've anonimized the keyword and code in there: http://www.chessvariants.com/login/change_email.php?userid=csarmi&newemail=([email protected])&keyword=(keyword)&code=(code)
Clicking that takes me to a page where I get this message:
"Please click the Confirm button to change your email address from [email protected] to [email protected]". There's a button called "New Email" where my email address is entered.
Looks like a change email form to me.
Nevertheless, I did click that button. After I've done so, the site still says my email address is unverified and I still don't get notification emails to my games.
So what should I do?
Máté
Home page of The Chess Variant Pages. Homepage of The Chess Variant Pages.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I have also created dummy berolina pawns and made the trick for them, too!
Man and Beast 20: Far From Square. Systematic naming of more complex hex-specific pieces.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]What about Falcon-like pieces involving a Rumbaba or other HD component? Especially now that George Duke’s patent on these pieces has expired, so you’re free to make “Falkeschach”. (I also want to see more Rhino-like pieces that mix all 3 of Rookwise, Bishopwise, and Unicornwise steps (of course having a 3MD instead of an EMD); the first one of which has a Fortnightwise 3MD on a cubic board, and therefore could be called “Fortrhino”.)
My suggestion for the Chevron version of the Falcon would be Warlobird. (Which also allows a suffix for pieces mixing oblique moves like how the Falcon family mixes radial moves: for example, a Gnubird would mix Knight and Camel moves.)
ChessV
. Program for playing numerous Chess variants against your PC.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Thanks, Sam. This is not too bad... I gather my algorithm was correct, but I assumed that the positions would be numbered 1-960 (as people count), not 0-959 (as programmers count). In fact, it looks like I just add one at the end after placing the pieces. Not sure where I got that - it's unlikely I just made it up, but it does seem that the consensus is to number the positions starting at 0. Anyway, easy fix.
Falcon Chess. Game on an 8x10 board with a new piece: The Falcon. (10x8, Cells: 80) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Which of the two possible stepping Fortnights do you mean?
- The one taking one each of wazir, ferz, and viceroy steps? Given that Gilman starts from the various bent/crooked pieces which only have two kinds of step, this is probably a bit out of scope (corkscrew pieces with one kind of step aside).
- The one taking three Ferz steps, two in one direction and one at 60° (dual to the hex Shearwater)? That'd match the two‐of‐one‐and‐one‐of‐the‐other pattern of the Falcon, and arguably as a Shearwater extrapolation could be nameworthy (I'd've suggested Fulmar, a family of birds related to shearwaters beginning with the F of fortnight as shearwater begins with the S of sennight, but it's already taken (albeit with unclear etymology) for Zephyr+Lama; perhaps Petrel, the group including the fulmars and still beginning with a labial consonant, would suit it?), but presumably he either didn't consider two diagonal directions different enough without the AltOrth‐ness, or it just didn't occur to him. And there are also Nonstandard Diagonals at small enough angles (35°) for more Falcon‐like pieces there too
For a stepping‐Trison component I'd probably choose the former, but individually both are interesting enough imo. There's still a few bird‐of‐prey names unused I think so if one were keen to name them in Gilmanesque fashion all that'd remain would be finding a game to use them in…
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.
I, too think Dragon and Gryphon are better names than Gryphon and Manticore. That is because of strength of pieces first (it is logical for the dragon to be stronger than the gryphon). Also the dragon it is a well established fantasy creature, where the manticore is a creature used in fantasy works to a lesser extent. That is for a fantasy setting at least. The usage of eagle and rhino is fine, too though! Those being the names Jean-Louis uses! But your argument is historical, and for that it carries some weight. I'm not sure what to say about that. In my Grand Apothecary Chess variants I have changed the names presented here for the bent riders to fit Fergus's proposal, which is more widely accepted. And by the way there is also a natural selection process at hand here. Maybe people would like more the dragon/gryphon style names. We cannot know for sure.