[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Ratings & Comments
Ok guys, I've created a minimal discussion system. Feel free to start using
it (and breaking it). I still have more work to do, but it's basically
functional. Please do let me know if you have any particular requests or
criticisms (or kudos :)...
I know I'm just being a pest, but maybe the default number of comments that
are on the new comments page should be rather less than 100. It loads
really fast, but if there are 100 long comments, it could take a while for
us poor benighted souls who live too far out in the boondocks to have DSL,
and don't wish to pay our cable companies triple per month. If they were
just 'Excellent, great job!' it would be OK, but when some of those wordy
people start writing, and talking about things that aren't even chess
variants, well.....
Good point John -- I have changed the default to 25. Now the question is,
should the default be summary mode or detail mode??
Detail mode. This is how I use the comments: I arrive at the What's New page via bookmark. If there is a new topic of interest, I investigate, and comment if inspired. If the 'last comment' time is more recent than the last time I logged on, I review the recent comments. A minimal visit is two clicks (What's New, recent comments). Usually I visit at least every other day. If the comments were in summary, I would have to expand each one to see what it's about. By way of explanation, I attempt to reduce the amount of typing and mousing I do to a minimum. Many of my older, professional IT colleagues have become diabled due to repetitive motion injuries. I have many years left to work, and I spend 8 hours a day in front of my workstation earning a living, then come home and play with my personal computer. I would like to be able to enjoy my computer in retirement without wrist braces and voice response.
I agree with John Lawson.
I'm considering adding a section to the Chess Variant Pages for chess
eBooks. Right now I'm aware of only two: Chess History and Reminiscences by
H.E. Bird, and Edward Lasker's Chess and Checkers: The Way to Mastership.
Both are Project Gutenberg files. Does anyone know of any other online
chess eBooks?
The discussion of piece values and the purpose of the variant for
<a href='../diffsetup.dir/chigorin.html'>Chigorin Chess</a> reminded me
of a conceptually-related idea I had a while ago I called Rook-Level Chess.
<p>
<h4>Rook-Level Chess</h4>
<p>
The idea I wanted to explore in Rook-Level Chess is: how would the play of
Chess be affected if the Rook, the Knight and the Bishop all had
approximately the same value? It seemed to me that threats would be
harder at the very least. Anyway, drawing on Ralph Betza's work on the
value of Chess pieces I selected stronger Knights and Bishops that retained
some of the character of the existing pieces: for Knights I used NW (Knight
+ Wazir or Marquis), for Bishops I used BD (Bishop + Dabbabah or Bede).
These pieces retain the color behavior of the pieces they replace: the
Marquis is color-changing, and the Bede is colorbound.
<p>
I sent this to David Paulowich, and asked him how he thought this would
affect exchanges. He replied that we would still prefer a Rook to a
Marquis and a Marquis to a Bede, as you could mate with a Rook + King vs
King, but not with Marquis + King vs King or Bede + King vs King, and he
still though color-switching pieces more valuable than colorbound ones,
other things being equal.
<h4>Rook-Level Chess II</h4>
<p>
Given the above comment, I wondered if the powered up Knight and Bishop
could retain <i>different</i> characteristics of the base piece? So, for
Rook-Level Chess II I replaced the Knight with ND (Knight + Dabbabah or
Vicount) and the Bishop with BW (Bishop + Ferz or Dragon-Horse). In this
case I retained that the Knight was a strictly leaping piece not attacking
adjacent pieces, and I retained that the Bishop was a non-jumping piece.
Are these pieces of equal value? And could you mate with Vicount + King
vs King? (Dragon-Horse + King vs King is a win.)
<h4>Discussion</h4>
<p>
I've played around with Rook-Level Chess a bit with Zillions for what it
is worth, but I strongly suspect it loses somethings that Chess has. If
nothing else, weak pieces can be fun since they can harass stronger pieces.
<p>
Other versions are of course possible. Given that Ralph has settled down
to rating the Crooked Bishop (zFF) as equal to a Rook (there being a brief
point where he was rating it at 1.5 Rooks), a Crooked Bishop might replace
the Bishop nicely.
<p>
I should eventually add these as modest variants.
It's an interesting idea, but would make for a more positional game with
more trading off of material. I would recommend these Rook-level pieces
perhaps for larger variants which would still include the usual knights
and
bishops.
Of course, there is the issue that on a larger board, since leapers are
weakened, most of these pieces are probably not quite Rook-level anymore.
One piece I do want to try in a larger variant someday is the NH (Knight
+ (3,0) leaper), since the H portion of the move would allow it to move
around a 10x10 board slightly faster than a Knight moves around an 8x8 board.
Continuing Peter's idea from his 'Alice Chess' comment on <a href='../diffmove.dir/monochro.html'>Monochromatic Chess</a>...
<p>I don't like the idea that Bishops would be restricted to their initial board. Perhaps giving the bishops a non-capturing wazir move would fix this. Option 3 is also a nice idea (the switch-a-roo).
<p>On the whole, I like this set of ideas. Perhaps it can be developed, with some play-testing, into a workable variant of Alice Chess, although Alice Chess itself is difficult enough to play... :)
Rook-Level Chess is a very nice idea. Of course, the Queen isn't R-level... As for K+ND versus K, confining the K is tricky but it can be done. Example: BKb8 WKc6, White ND e4, Black's move 1...Kc8 2. Nd6+ Kb8 3. Kb6 Ka8 4. NDc8+ Kb8 5. NDc6+ and 6. ND a6 mate.
There's an idea for the Bishop's move -- give it a colorbound Wazir's move,
so that it can only use it to change boards.
Just repeat that term: <i>A colorbound Wazir's move</i>. I love to be
able to say that and have it mean something
Thanks for the end-game! I deliberately left the Queen out of the leveling
so as not to make thinks <strong>too</strong> uniform.
<p>
I wonder if the the <b>Rook-Level Chess I</b> army vs the <b>Rook-Level
Chess II</b> army would be a balanced form of Chess with Different Armies?
I would think so, but the <b>RLC II</b> army does have a significant 'can
mate' advantage. Does it matter?
Dear 'Editor in Yellow', Programmers who have junketed to i18n fora know that col[u]rs have various meaning in various cultures. For example, in Italian, yellow is the color of mystery.[1] http://www.panix.com/~gnohmon/nemofull.html is a text which should be added as a supplemental and corrective link, but not just yet. My apologies for having made so many errors and rewrites and addenda. http://www.panix.com/~gnohmon/nemofull.html should be read and criticized by our critical public until a critical mass of agreement is reached, and then the editor should step in, whether yellow or dark sea green 3. http://www.panix.com/~gnohmon/nemofull.html should soon be on the cv pages, but first the multitude should fish in it for errors and omissions. http://www.panix.com/~gnohmon/nemofull.html should someday be authoratative, but meanwhile, please allow me to grovel and cringe, O great Editor who knows not his ablative from his elboh, may I humbly beg you to please change for me one great omission in the original Nemoroth file? As stated in http://www.panix.com/~gnohmon/nemofull.html, repetition of position is forbidden! Your humble supplicant is humbled with shame, how can I have omitted to say this? I be so ipse dissed that I'd almost seppuku but no, so much better to tofuku. I have disemboweled a bean curd to express my embare-ass-ment. By all means, treat http://www.panix.com/~gnohmon/nemofull.html as authoritative, and please accept from this humble supplicant a case of root beer, or if you prefer, a single bottle of Hennepin.
Yellow is the color of mystery in Italy? I wonder if Robert Chambers knew
that. (Robert Chambers was an early writer of supernatural horror who's
work, particularly <u>The King in Yellow</u>, was cited as major influence
by Lovecraft and his circle.)
<p>
Repetition is now forbidden!
<p>
I have printed out your screed to study in the morning, when the sap rises
and the brain cells go off strike.
<p>
Forget the root beer or the Hennepin, what I want is a case of Diet Moxie.
It's the one form of soda that my kids will not filch.
<p>
(I have actually recently dived into the seas of i18n, actually -- talk
about your eldritch horrors! The subtle distinctions between UCS-2 and
UTF-16 will drive me mad, <strong>mad</strong> I say! <i>Mua, ha, ha,
ha . . .</i>)
Various and sundry ideas about calculating the value of chess pieces. First off, it is quite interesting to instead of picking a magic number as the chance of a square being empty, calculate the value for everything between 32 pieces on the board and 3 pieces on the board. Currently I'm then just averaging all the numbers, and it gives me numbers slightly higher than using 0.7 as the magic number (for Runners - Knights and other single step pieces are of course the same). One advantage of it is that it becomes easier to adjust to other starting setups - for Grand Chess I can calculate everything between 40 pieces on the board and 3, and it should work. With a magic number I'd have to guess what the new value should be, as it would probably be higher since the board starts emptier. One disadvantage is that I have no idea whether or not the numbers suck. :) Interesting embellishments could be added - social and anti-social characteristics could modify the values before they are averaged, and graphs of the values would be interesting. It would be interesting to compare the official armies from Chess with Different Armies at the final average and at each particular value. It might be possible to do something besides averaging based on the shape of the graph - the simplest idea would be if a piece declines in power, subtract a little from it's value but ignore the ending part, assuming that it will be traded off before the endgame. Secondly, I'm not sure what to do with the numbers, but it is interesting to calculate the average number of moves it takes a piece to get from one square to another, by putting the piece on each square in turn and then calculate the number of moves it takes to get for there to every other square. So for example a Rook (regardless of it's position on the board) can get to 15 squares in 1 move, 48 squares in 2 moves, and 1 square in 0 move (which I included for simplicity, but which should probably be left out) so the average would be 1.75. I've got some old numbers for this on my computer which are probably accurate, but I no longer know how I got them. Here's a sampling: Knight: 2.83 Bishop: 1.66 (can't get to half the squares) Rook: 1.75 Queen: 1.61 King: 3.69 Wazir: 5.25 Ferz: 3.65 (can't get to half the squares) This concept seems to be directly related to distance. Perhaps some method of weighting the squares could make it account for forwardness as well. Finally, on the value of Kings. They are generally considered to have infinite value, as losing them costs you the game. But what if you assume that the standard method is to lose when you have lost all your pieces, and that kings have the special disadvantage that losing it loses you the game? I first assumed this would make the value fairly negative, but preliminary testing in Zillions seems to indicate it is somewhere around zero. If it is zero, that would be very nifty, but I'll leave it to someone much better than me at chess to figure out it's true value.
'Yellow is the color of mystery in Italy' is an arcane little i18n joke. A paperback pulp mystery story is colloquially called 'un giallo' (a yellow) because of its yellow cover. Even the publisher Mondadori uses the term, as its series is titled 'Il Giallo Mondadori'. Number 1331, 'Quella Bomba di Nero Wolfe' (Please Pass the Guilt) was published in 1974 and it is weekly, therefore the series began around 1948; but it also says 'new series', so the usage of a yellow in this sense may be older. This is *not* the sort of color usage that can get you into i18n trouble, though it sounds like the typical 'White is the color of death in China' warning, and that's the little joke. For true madness and horror, you should look into the methods of internationalization that were used in the days before the current standards existed....
'First off, it is quite interesting to instead of picking a magic number as the chance of a square being empty, calculate the value for everything between 32 pieces on the board and 3 pieces on the board. Currently I'm then just averaging all the numbers,' I've done that, too. The problem is, if the only reason you accept the results is because they are similar to the results given by the magic number, then the results have no special validity, they mean nothing more than the magic results. So why add the extra computational burden? If, on the other hand, you had a sound and convincing theory of why averaging the results was correct, that would be a different story. 'This concept seems to be directly related to distance.' Actually, I think I'd call it 'speed'. I'm pretty sure that I've played with those numbers but gave up because I couldn't figure out what to do with them. Maybe you can; I encourage you to try.
Some initial thoughts upon reading <b>The Official Rules of Nemoroth</b>.
(Some of which should have been raised by the previous article.)
<p>
<ul>
<li>The Ghast. How is 'two squares' defined -- does a Ghast frighten a
piece a Knight's move away from it?</li>
<p>
<li>Compelled Moves. It is really unclear reading both documents just
<i>who</i> moves the fleeing pieces, the owner or the player who causes
them to flee.</li> I'm assuming the following sequence:
<ol>
<li>A's Ghast is move; A's turn is over.</li>
<li>B moves all compelled pieces, in the order they choose; B's turn is
over.</li>
<li>If B caused any compelled moves, then A must make them as necessary,
otherwise, A may move as they please.</li>
</ol>
If the above is the case, if B's resolution of compelled moves caused
further compelled moves for B (by screaming 'Go Away' at an opposing
Ghast), are they resolved in that turn? If there are multiple such moves
(as B 'ping-pongs' A's Ghast between two Go Aways), could a piece make
multiple compelled moves in a turn this way?
<p>
For that matter, if you are compelled into a square which you must move off
of, is that resolved the same turn or the following turn?</li>
<p>
<li>Petrified Leaf Piles. I think I would have assumed a petrified Leaf
Pile could still engulf if pushed, but the rules state otherwise. I guess
that the assumption is that it isn't mobile enough to engulf anything
anymore.</li>
<p>
<li>The Interaction Matrix. If you actually created a matrix of all the
possible interactions, it might be nice to include it in document as a
table.</li>
<p>
<li>A simplified version of this game could have it when any piece is
pushed into an occupied square, all pieces in the square are crushed and
eliminated, and when a piece is pushed onto an ichorous square, it and the
ichor are also eliminated. This might be useful for starting players.</li>
</ul>
How do you plan to combine the documents? Take the first part of the
original followed by the new? Or perhaps a detailed merging? Or perhaps
just bring the first into compliance with the second, and then have the
second as a link from the first?
<hr>
I am just as glad to have missed the early days of i18n (I was aware of all
the weirdness, but was involved more things like the stability of floating
point numbers through multiple operations in those days).
A couple of tangental issues:
<hr>
Is <b>The Game of Nemoroth</b> a Chess Variant? It would rather depend on
who you asked. On one hand the game is clearly derived from Chess, but on
the other, some believe that a Royal Piece is the sine qa non of a Chess
Variant. Thus, one person classified V.R. Parton's game
<a href='../parton/100Squares.txt'>Damate</a> as not a Chess variant, even
though is played with Chess pieces (albeit using capture by overtaking),
while classifying my game
<a href='http://www.zillions-of-games.com/games/towers.html'>Towers</a> as
a Chess Variant, which I did not. Myself, I like a loose definition of
Chess Variant.
<hr>
Why is it that when I encounter an Ultima variant, it inevitably seems
more complex than Ultima, not less? (This includes David Howe's and my
as-yet-unpublished game of <b>Rococo</b> (I haven't forgotten about it
David!)). I guess there something about the game that says: 'this could
be even more complex, try it!'
'Is The Game of Nemoroth a Chess Variant?' I believe it is, though it stretches the boundaries. For me, the telling point is that there's a kind of checkmate (provided by compulsion). Because the basic condition of victory is stalemate, and because the pieces all have different moves, it would also stretch the boundaries to call it an ultima variant. The complexity of interactions of the pieces feels a bit Ultima-ish, though.
1. 'B moves all compelled pieces' Oh, no. I'll have to read closely and try to see why you could have possibly thought that. Instead, 'B moves one compelled piece (or makes a saving move for it).' One move at a time. If you have compelled pieces, your moves are restricted, just like being in check except that compulsion is more powerful because if you have several compelled pieces the opponent has several moves of free action (can go around engulfing everything while you are helpless). 2. 'if you are compelled into a square which you must move off' no, the compelled move must be a legal move. You can't move onto ichor just because you're compelled. 3. petrified Leaf Pile could still engulf if pushed -- I like that, it's more consistent, I have made this change. 4. Simplified version of the game. Ah yes, a game for demon toddlers. I like that idea, too. 5. I planned to integrate the documents by making the official rules a link from the first doc; and therefore removing most of the Interactions section (just keep a few highlights).
How did I come to that conclusion? It wasn't a sin of commission, but
perhaps a sin of omission, or perhaps just my mistake. You wrote:
<blockquote>
There are cases in which pieces are compelled to move. When you are under compulsion, you may make any move which removes the compulsion, but if you cannot satisfy the compulsion of at least one piece, you lose. (Think of it as checkmate.)
</blockquote>
Somehow it didn't occur to me that unlike the Go Away, the Ghast's compulsion (and other compulsions) just affected what moves were required
and legal. An alternate wording might be something like:
<blockquote>
There are cases in which pieces are compelled to move. If you have any
compelled pieces, you must move one of them as your move, although you
may choose among your compelled pieces with legal moves. If you have
compelled pieces, and none of your compelled pieces have legal moves, you
are stalemated and thus lose.
</blockquote>
Strangely enough, compelled moves are a bit like capturing moves in
checkers, being higher priority than other moves.
I am attempting to locate one variant from the Sung Dynasty China (0960), Which has an extended king row, forward of which are two rows of pawns, forward are two major power pieces [ either named lance or archer] , forward of the archer is yet another row of pawns. Any info you might have on this game would be greatly appreciated. Thank You
I use a very simple rule for detrmining what's an
Ultima variant or not: if
the author calls it an Ultima variant, it is; if not, it isn't. So The Game of Nemoroth and my game
Interweave are not Ultima
variants since they don't call themselves that (although Interweave
describes itself has being sort of Ultima-like).
Examining this site and The Encyclopedia of Chess Variants, I find the following Ultima Variants:
- Bogart's Chess, which replaces a Chameleon and a Long Leaper with an Absorber (which picks up the capture method of each piece it captures) and a Golem, which only moves two but has to be captured twice (this was the inspiration for Golem Chess).
- Renaissance, which is played on a 9x9 board, and adds a Pusher, a Puller, a Resurrector, and a Bomb, and has a limited form of drops of captured pieces (using the Resurrector).
- Stupid, where each piece can move like an Ultima piece and an Orthochess piece.
- Ulti-Matem, except the Pawns have the moves of the Orthochess pieces they would be standing in front of, except for the King's Pawn which is a Double Knight Pawn which makes two Knight's moves in a row in any pattern.
- Ultimate Ultima which you described in this comment system here.
- Unorthodox Ultima, in which a Long Leaper and a Chameleon are replaced by a Neutalizer (which removes the ability to capture of adjacent pieces) and a Repeller which forces an opposing piece moved next to move as far away as possible.
I spent some (to much!) time last night fooling around with Ruddigore Chess. I started by hacking and slashing up Fergus's Duniho's Chessgi ZRF, and seeing what happened. (Zillions is hardly the only tool suitable for this sort of thing, of course, but it is the one that usually comes to hand for me. Occasionally I worry about the effect this has on my game designing, since if the only tool you have is a hammer, everthing starts
to look like a nail. However, the essay <u>Zillions of Games: threat or
menace</u>, will have to wait for another day.)
<p>
As a frame, the battle represents a Loser-take-all battle between Sir
Ruthven Murgatroyd (white) and Sir Despard Murgatroyd (black) as to who
will be stuck being the cursed Bad Baronet of Ruddigore.
<p>
The initial rules were:
<ol>
<p>
<li><b>Ruddigore</b> Chess is a
<a href='../other.dir/chesgi.html'>Chessgi</a> variant, and all rules of
that game apply except when contradicted below.</li>
<p>
<li>Each turn that a player does not perform a wicked deed by capturing a
piece (their's or their opponent's), they must sacrifice a piece to
the curse. Pieces in hand may be sacrificed. Sacrificed pieces are out of
the game.</li>
<p>
<li>You may capture your own pieces ('If a man can't capture his own,
pieces, <strong>whose</strong> pieces <em>can</em> he capture?'). Pieces
of your own you capture go into your hand.</li>
<p>
<li>The first three turns are a Bank Holiday, and there are no captures or
sacrifices then.</li>
<p>
<li>If you run out of other pieces to sacrifice, and you must sacrifice,
you must sacrifice your King and lose.</li>
</ol>
<p>
The problem with this game, as a few minutes of thought would have told me,
is that it is far, far easier to capture your own pieces than the
opponent's. What you get is mostly self captures with occasional threats
in order to force a piece loss on the opponent, with the goal of having
them run out of pieces to sacrifice first. Not very Chess-like.
<p>
The made the follow changes then, attempting to get more pieces engaged:
<ul>
<p>
<li>Only the King, renamed the Baronet and given the ability to capture
(but not move without capturing) like a Knight in addition to moving
like a King [WFcN], can
capture friendly pieces (if you want something done right . . .).</li>
<p>
<li>The Knights are replaced by Gentlemen, which are limited Nightriders
(NN2).</li>
<p>
<li>Pawns are now Quickpawns which can always move two forward, and I've
eliminated en passant to encourage them.</li>
</ul>
<p>
This made a small difference, but not enough. So I eliminated the Bank Holiday, and made sacrifices required only on even turns (Sir Despard did
all of his wicked deeds in the morning, and did good in the afternoon).
This helped a lot, now you can capture your own piece on an even turn,
and deploy it on an odd one. Now, though, I'm wondering if the Gentlemen
are too powerful, since when dropped they can fork like anything. Maybe
Halfling Nightriders?
<p>
I also find I'm tempted to rename everything: Pawns into Farmers, Bishops
into Vicars, Rooks into Squires, and Queens to Stewards. But on the
other hand, if the move hasn't changed, it is confusing to change the name
of the piece.
<p>
Anyway, this is still very much an on-going project, and I'd appreciate any
advice anyone has.
<a href='http://diamond.boisestate.edu/gas/ruddigore/discussion/short.html'>This</a>
is a wonderful, if silly short summary of the plot of Ruddigore.
Peter Aronson wrote: '(Zillions is hardly the only tool suitable for this sort of thing, of course, but it is the one that usually comes to hand for me. Occasionally I worry about the effect this has on my game designing, since if the only tool you have is a hammer, everthing starts to look like a nail. However, the essay Zillions of Games: threat or menace, will have to wait for another day.)' I had never thought of this effect, perhaps because I neither design games nor write ZRFs (I entirely lack creativity). I take this to mean that ZoG-wise game designers will avoid designing games using concepts that cannot be effectively implemented in Zillions-of-Games, thereby limiting their own creativity. At the same time, ZoG has been considered a tremendous boon to board game variantists of all stripes, allowing them to play and test their more-or-less obscure discoveries and creations without the need to actually find and interact with other people. So, the starter questions are, 'Does ZoG limit creativity?', 'If it does, does it matter?' What do you think?
I think that the silly summary is actually longer than a serious one would be; but it's lots of fun and reasonably accurate. Definitely a useful thing for those who don't speak the language. As for the game, it seems a worthy endeavour, but needs to be clever or else it will never. 'Mostly self-capture with the occasional threat'. Idea 1. There is no problem. Sacrifice a few Pawns to build up an attack; give checkmate, and win. You merely weren't sufficiently enterprising in your play. (This idea could very well be false, but deserves to be mentioned.) Idea 2. Make self-capture less appealing than other-capture. Pieces go in hand but are demoted? Something might work.
The only tool I usually use is the chessboard in my head, which usually limits my games to things that I can playtest blindfold. Given a chessboard and a few coins and a pencil and paper, one can do a wider range of games than can be done using just the mental board; but then I wonder if that distracts one from the 'pure thought' which proves so productive. I would have to say that whatever works well for you is best.
I kind of like the current version, and will play with it further. That is: - Sacrifice every other turn - Knights replaced by Halfling Nightriders - Only Baronets (Royal WFcN) can capture own pieces - Pawns are quick Pawns and no en passant I'll try to find some of my usual suspects to playtest with via e-mail, and see how it works.
Well, I do worry about limiting my designs to what works well for Zillions.
Of the 17 or so games I've published since I've learned Zillions
programming, only one -- Transactional Chess -- has not been implemented
with Zillions. This leads me to wonder what games am I 'self-censoring'
in favor the ones that are easily implementable with Zillions. The games
I designed before were often difficult to completely implement for
Zillions; some would merely say that Zillions was simplify causing me to
simply the games, which is all to the good. But there can be simple ideas
that are not simple to implement with Zillions. Chatter Chess would be
a great deal of work to implement in Zillions, for example.
I hadn't worked with halfing Nightriders before -- it's a very nice piece.
All halflings have shorter range the closer they get to the center, but
the hhNN is more extreme somehow, moving like regular Knights when in the
central 4x4 area. I'll have to use them somewhere else someday.
I have an idea for self-captured pieces: a self-captured piece cannot be dropped to a square which is threatened by a friendly piece. This should alleviate the use of self-captured pieces to checkmate or block checks.
That's a though, David. It does, of course, require you to keep track
of two classes of captured pieces. A few other ideas in that
direction:
<ul>
<p>
<li>Self-captured pieces go into your <em>opponent's</em> hand, not your
own;</li>
<p>
<li>Self-captured pieces turn into 'Prisoners', which can not be dropped,
only sacrificed to pay for the curse (this is a more extreme version of
Ralph's suggestion that self-captured pieces be demoted).</li>
<p>
</ul>
At the moment I'm inclined to allow full self-capturing -- it's, ah,
interesting.
So we allow ourselves to be limited by the tools we are comfortable with. Peter tailors his inventions with an eye to Zillions implementation. Gnohmon, having a 8x8 board in his head, concentrates on ideas that play on an 8x8 board that feel like chess. Is this a bad thing, because it limits creativity? Is it a good thing, because it concentrates the mind? Both of you produce one interesting idea after another. So do other inventors. Do the limitations of the universes of discourse you have chosen confine or focus your creative efforts? I have also perceived an attitude among some CVPhiles that a creation is not complete without a ZRF. Certainly, this is a wrong-headed attitude, although a good ZRF is pleasing. Is the implicit requirement for a ZRF a bad thing? I would say yes, because it discourages people with ideas whose skills or inclinations are just not up to producing ZRFs routinely. As a result, there may be ideas that are interesting or intriguing that do not see the light of day. Do you agree?
I have thought about it for quite a while, that chess lacks a coherent handicap system. (A good example of a coherent handicap system is that of go) How do we go about crating one for chess? Certainly chess for different armies of ralph betza points the way forward. Black Ghost of Ralph Betza is a step toward a handicap system. Using these as stepping stones, let me propose the following: Types of Handicap: Range: Gradual limiting of the range of stronger player's pieces Functional: Limiting the leaping/capturing ability of the stronger player Balancing: Adding power to the weak side, for example adding of a ghost like in ghost chess. Of course how a comprehensive system might look like, I'm not sure yet, so any comments welcome.
It would be nice to have a full, comprehensive article on Chess Handicapping. Anyone out there want to volunteer?
let me put out a few points, though I don't yet have enough for a comprehensive page yet, but when I do, I might pull it together for one. So I volunteer provisionally, though I might need some help going forward. Chess-like game with handicap systems that could be a guide are: knightmare chess http://www.sjgames.com/knightmare/handicapping.html Shogi http://www.msoworld.com/mindzine/news/orient/shogi_handicap1.html The first site mentions that for standard chess, traditional handicap is based on similar pricipal as shogi handicaps. While the traditional system is a good start I would like to have a much more fine grained approach. I'll leave it here so I can write a more detailed note soon also to give the reader a chance to respond.
I usually think of the game first and then try the Zillions implementation. The result is, sometimes, that the Zillions implementation is unwieldy. It is true, though, that some I have not even tried to implement. There is a great alternative, and that is our very own (thanks to Fergus) play-by-e-mail system which is available to any square or hex board design, requiring enforcement of the rules by the players--like a table-top chess set. As far as 'mentally' creating games. Yes, when the game idea is very interesting, I find myself mulling over it and the game design works itself out conceptually--to a large degree, however, not completely. There are some details of playability that only work themselves out in playtesting. Zillions is a great way to work out the playability of a game, at least as a first step. One pitfall that Zillions has is that the farther a game is from orthochess the poorer the Zillions engine plays the game. Some games, it plays very poorly, some in a skewed way, some extremely well. Ultimately, play against a person is best for testing. If one is interested in play by e-mail, a Zillions implementation can be as basic as a board and pieces that can move on it, without full rules enforcement--this liberates many of the programming restrictions--since it does not matter how well Zillions itself plays the game. Back to the orginal question: I have found that in some practical ways, Zillions does 'suggest' the development of a game because of the programming practicalities. But I would not say that it inhibits ideas altogether. There is one game I would like to try but have not found a way to play by e-mail: Star Trek 3-D Chess (the 'real' one with the shifting boards!) Any ideas?
Continuing with this subject let me propose the following: let their be 9 levels of mastery (similar to asian game ratings, but in keeping with western chess theme, we need a different name than dan) Between each level and the one below is divided 4 sublevels. (Again a name is sought) The difference between sublevels is one point, as described by Ralph Betza in http://chessvariants.com/d.betza/pieceval/p3-01.html. The move is good enough for difference of one sublevel. The difference between levels is then naturally 4 points, or pawn and move. For other handicaps we need to temper with the army somewhat, but whatever we do must be ballanced, from openning to endgame. Also as can be calculate, I envision the largest handicap to be 36 points, roughly the value of an amazon. I think this is a reasonable upperbound but as I am not a good chess player, input would be really appreciated.
I am creating a pawnless CV, which suddenly led to the question of: What happens in FIDE chess if we remove the pawns and disallow castling. Does white have overwhelming advantage or is there a good defense for black?
I don't think simply removing the Pawns from the FIDE array would make a good game. Consider Derek Nalls various all-rider Chess variants -- they use rather different arrays indeed.
<p>
Maybe something like:<b><pre>+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| r |:q:| k |:r:| |:::| |:::|
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|:b:| n |:n:| b |:::| |:::| |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| |:::| |:::| |:::| |:::|
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|:::| |:::| |:::| |:::| |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| |:::| |:::| |:::| |:::|
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|:::| |:::| |:::| |:::| |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
| B |:N:| N |:B:| |:::| |:::|
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
|:R:| Q |:K:| R |:::| |:::| |
+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+</pre></b>
Of course, different pieces might work even better, such as halfling pieces or powerful but short ranged pieces, such as Half-Ducks for Rooks and FAD's for Bishops and a FAWDH for a Queen. Experimentation is certainly the key here.
Actually my game will be different from just removing pawns from standard FIDE setup. The reason for my question is more along the lines of giving a pawnless FIDE, what are the shortcommings of such a game, and why wouldn't it be a good game. Or in other words what is the mininum that can be done to make it a good game.
Thinking about it, let me restate my question in the form of 2 challenges: Construct the shortest possible fool's mate for the following variant: FIDE chess without pawns nor castling. Then construct the shortest possible computer's mate (named after early chess computer programs), by which I mean that it will respond to any possible mate within 3 moves. Or another way to say it is construct the shortest game that leads to a win in 4 moves.
I have played games of FIDE Chess with W giving odds of all 8 Pawns.... With both sides no Pawns, I'd try 1. Qxd8+ followed by 2. Rh1xh8, which ought to win. With Pawns replaced by W or F or Berolina Pawns, in a sense it's not so Pawnless, is it? Racing Kings is Pawnless. It has a different goal, and perhaps you could argue that it's not even Chess. However, in the process of becoming NOST postal champion a few years in a row, I learned to appreciate what a great game it is. Without using really weak pieces to replace Pawns, you could probably find a setup on the 4x16 circular chessboard that works.
Construct the shortest possible fool's mate for the following variant: FIDE chess without pawns nor castling. I love these questions, and always try to include them in my own new games. 1 Rh7 Na6 2 Qh5++; a pretty solution because because Rh7 covers flight squares *and* blocks Rh8xh5. Note 1 Be2 Bd7 2 Kf1 Ra7 3 Qe2 Ra8 4 Bh5++ is shortest doublecheck mate.
> I love these questions, and always try to include them in my own new > games. Glad that you like these kind of questions. I thought it might be fun too. > 1 Rh7 Na6 2 Qh5++; Short and sweet. Quite amazing really. 'Note 1 Be2 Bd7 2 Kf1 Ra7 3 Qe2 Ra8 4 Bh5++ is shortest doublecheck mate.' the 3rd move doesn'T make sense. After the second move we have . n . q k b n r r . . b . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B . . . R N B Q . K N R Qe2 is an impossible move, however I think you intended Qe1 which works. It is interesting that both of these are helpmates, I wonder if a computer mate as I defined can be found easily, or does it really need a computer to answer that questions.
1 Be2 Bd7 2 Kf1 Ra7 3 Qe1 Ra8 4 Bh5++ doublecheck 'I'm glad you like these questions' -- I have always (well, at least since I started publishing CV writings in the early 1970s) appreciated the value-added that asking these questions can give to your new game. Before you ask, you should either know the answer or suspect that the answer will be really interesting. The 'standard' questions are:::::::: 1. Shortest foolsmate (for some games, shortest victory) 2. Shortest doublecheck (triple check, quadruple check, etc.) with or without mate 3. Shortest stalemate; 4. shortest stalemate without capture (the great and brilliant and superhuman Sam Lloyd solved these for FIDE Chess; if you don't know his solutions, look them up and you will feel the emotion known as 'awe' -- really, no exaggeration, awe.) 5, shortest perpetual check, 6. others appropriate for specific variants.
Continuing what Ralph said about the need for more prominent heading for chess history. One possible idea is a specific page on the history of chess that shows a genealogy of chess. A genealogy because it shows both history and the relationship between the different historical variants. Such an undertaking would be no small one by any means but would provide a good context for the layman and scholar alike in the foundations of this pusuit of variants.
Here's another thought: Why not take HJR Murray's 'A Brief History of Chess', and Project-Gutenberg-ize it? That would be phase 1. Phase 2: Take HJR's 'History of Chess' and Guten-ize it (ie. produce an ebook version).
Of course, phase 2 would be a huge job. Anyone know if these two books are public domain yet? HoC was published in the early 1900's. If anyone else is interested in doing this, I could check with the folks at PG.
<p>Thinking smaller... perhaps a timeline page or chess geneology page. With links of course. Perhaps this would be a good job for Hans or JL Cazaux?
The copy of Murray that I own is the 1969 reprint, not the 1909 original. It may well be that the reprint in some manner updated the copyright? Laws on this subject have changed from time to time... Project gutenburg is usually plain text files. Can Murray be appreciated fully without the diagrams? No. Can it be appreciated to some extent? Yes, of course. Modern scanners may be able to extract the text pretty well, but then if you don't proofread what the scanner said, the book is seen as if through a scanner darkly (title of a book by l cordwainer smith; always wanted to use that phrase in casual conversation.) Big job, no matter what. Big disk space, but there are so many terabytes now, how else to fill them? Big download for the reader. But, what a book! And how much we all owe to it!
The diagrams will have to be described using FFEN, which the FFEN to HTML converter will take care of the rest. And probably lots of proofreading. But it is possible.
Err, I don't think Project Gutenburg is using FFEN -- just plain text.
What I mean is that FFEN is a way to convert the diagrams to plain text. and for the people who want to read it they would understand it. Moreover this way a special reader can translat it to diagrams.
Project Gutenburg, while they concentrate on 'plain vanilla texts', also produces some works that are (or contain) non-textual information. Also, they are no averse to producing HTML products, as long as there is a plain text version available.
<p>FFEN is one option, but we could also use GIF's. Or even plain old ugly ascii diagrams. The book would definitely have to be broken up into chapters, as the full book in one file would be too huge.
<p>I'll send a request to PG to see if they feel the book (Hoc) is public domain.
I've recently had a strange idea for an 84-square chess variant, and I'd like to get some comments on it. I call it Three-Layer Wedding Cake Chess. The bottom layer is a standard 8x8 chess board with the standard chess piece placement. Above the middle 16 squares is the second layer, an initially empty 4x4 board. Above the middle four squares of the second layer is the third layer, an initially empty 2x2 board. The goal is to get your queen and king on the top layer before the opponent's king and queen can reach the top layer. There is no check, checkmate, or any true capturing. A piece (including P,R,B,N,Q, or K) can move onto a square occupied by an enemy piece only if the square immediately above that enemy is empty. When such a move occurs, the enemy piece is 'elevated' to the square immediately above its current positions. If a player can elevate an enemy piece, he or she must do so. If more than one elevation is possible, the player can choose which one to carry out. A player may move a piece to the square immediately below that piece if that square is empty. Pieces move on the top layers just as they do on the bottom layer, except that pawns may only promote on the bottom layer. FIDE rules apply except as I've contradicted them above (so, for example, there are no 3D moves other than the ones given above,). Previous variants inspiring and influencing this one include Bachelor Chess (the wedding theme), Pyramid Chess (board layout), Reenterent Chess (each square on the top two layers acting like a reentering square for 'captures' on the square immediately below), Losing Chess ('captures' compulsory), and Elevator Chess (inspiring the term 'elevate'). I hope you find this entertaining.
Well, to damn it with faint (or dubious) praise, it seems reasonable to me,
at least at first blush.
<p>
With forced captures and an attainment goal, the play will not be
particularly Chess-like, I suspect. Not that that's a problem.
<p>
It has some simularities to
<a href= '../diffobjective.dir/giveaway.html'>Losing Chess</a>, but only
in the middle. I do wonder if the board will just become hopelessly
clogged, particularly the middle board. The problem is, pieces
can only be forced to move by offering them captures, and captures can
only be offered <strong>on</strong> the squares you want to be able to
move pieces <em>off</em> of.
<p>
Perhaps some form of capture other than elevation is required for the
outer boards, such as <a href='../difftaking.dir/circe.html'>Circean</a>
capture where captured pieces are returned to their starting square.
What happens if the top squares get filled up? Is the game a stalemate, or is there a way to clear out the top to make room fo the king and queen? Also this has some resembalance to Cheops, in which one of the two objectives is to have the queen on the top level of the pyramidal board.
<h4>CV Descriptions as Literature</h4>
Ralph Betza recently complimented on how my page on <A
HREF='../other.dir/ruddigore-chess.html'>Ruddigore Chess</A> was
written. This led me to think about Ralph's excellent pages for <A
HREF='../other.dir/nemoroth.html'>The Game of Nemoroth</A>, and
wonder: can an Chess variant's description also be a work of
literature?
<P>
(Let me note that in my view, literature comes in a quite a large range
of quality, and piece of writing does not have to be to the standards
of F. Scott Fitzgerald or James Joyce to qualify. The fast and loose
definition I'm going to use here is that literature is writing of at
least reasonable quality, intended to be pleasurable or moving to
read. (The intelligentsia may now commence my immolation.))
<P>
A possibly analogous situation.
One of my two degrees is in geography, and of course I was educated in
its history. Until the late 19th Century, Geography (with the
exception of Cartography and related disciplines) was primarily a
descriptive science, and could be and was looked at as a variety of
literature -- the literature of place. A piece of geographic writing
was judged almost as much by the quality of its writing as the
correctness and completeness of its facts.
<p>
Chess variants as described in these pages are a combination of rules
and description, of algorithm and literature. While I would hardly
suggest that the quality of the writing is anywhere near as important
as the quality of the rules, yet sometimes the writing is very good.
If you search through these pages, you will admittedly, find many
bare-bones or clumsy descriptions of Chess variants. Often it is not
the fault of the author, who may be laboring with a foreign language,
or simply not have time or writing experience for the type of
description they would like to produce. And opinions vary; as editor,
I have corresponded with authors who prefered a very minimalist
presentation of their designs. But still, if you wander through these
pages, you will find stories and jokes and puns, references to arts
and popular culture, small essays on the processes of designing and
playing games, and snatches of biography and history. Sort of a
literary smorgasbord.
<p>
Does all of this additional material add or detract from the rules
that are the <I>raison d'etre</I> of the pages in the first place?
Do readers like their Chess variants straight, or with a splash of story?
I think that it depends opon the variant and the wirteing style, a bare bones rules would be preferable to a badly writen naritive which has the rules in it, on the other hand a sci-fi/fantasy based varient would seem stale or flat without somekind of backround. And when it comes to background there is a very large gray area, becuase you could easily say that why a piece was chosen to move the way it does is part of a bare bones discription, but sometimes the reasoning is so complex it could qualify as literature. There is also a question of 'What is literature?' a common question is 'Is a comicbook literature?' in this case it might be better as 'Is a discription literature?' some would say yes, others no. Certainly I would always prefer a discrtiption into which some kind of tone or voice has been put, but that is not the same as haveing something on the level of Ralph Betza's Nemoroth, which gives you the feel and atmosphere of the game. If everyone could write on that level then we would have an impressive colection of CVs and literature in one, and games that otherwise might have been overlooked would be noticed and played. I fear that I may have lost track of my point near the first or second line but if I try and go back and change it this will make even less sense. Basicly what I'm saying is that a well writen back story or setting could never hurt a discription, and in some cases it's absense would. Also a discription its self can have a certain literay flavor to it that makes it easier to read and understand than a bare rules only format. I think that the most disireable form of a discription is first and formost the rules, backround information on how the game came to be and why the pieces are the way they are, and any story or such thing that goes with it, i.e. a game claiming to be elven chess should say a bit about how the elves played the game. If the rules are mixed in with the other elements, like for example as in Nemoroth it may also be a good idea to have them listed sepreately, also as in Nemoroth, so that those that don't want to read the non rule related elements don't have to, and those that want to quickly refrence a rule can. I know I rambled and I hope it made sense and was in some way helpful.
Although the format of the CVP is like a database or encyclopedia, I think that it is actually better thought of as a 'conversation' about chess variants. Many variantists probably actually play very little, and most variants receive very little play. Therefore, the main point of the CVP, at least for some, is the communication of the ideas behind the variants. As in any 'conversation', although the primary focus is to impart information, a desire to amuse, entertain, and interact is perfectly valid. Also, some variants are better understood with the story that inspired them. A bare-bones exposition of the Nemoroth rules would seem incomprehensible and arbitrary. Other variants that are hard to appreciate without their background stories are Peter's Ruddigore Chess, or Dan Troyka's Hitchhiker Chess. One is on thinner ice with descriptions that are just plain silly, like my Pizza Kings. It is important to avoid a descent into pointless sophomoric humor, like the relentless plays on words in the headlines of bad newspapers. We should also remind ourselves, when writing rules, that the CVP has an international following. Therefore, it is likely that the point behind Ruddigore Chess is completely opaque to someone with no knowledge of or interest in late 19th C. English musical theater. We also have to be careful not to obscure the rules with verbal cleverness. The beauty of the recently improved comment system, is that it provides a forum for those so inclined to play with words and concepts, without getting in the way of the clarity of the descriptive pages. I think I might have had a point once in all this, but I ignored it and it wandered away. I like clever and amusing literate writing. I think it enhances the CVP, but it is not necessary to the CVP. Intelligent, well-thought-out, and clearly described variants are what is necessary.
Having had time to think of my earlier comment I am almost entirely sure that I lost the point, the reader, or both. I'll try to keep it short this time. I completely missed one of the points that I had wanted to make. A discription with just the rules can be writen in such a way that the author puts their own tone or flavor into it, this gives the reader a feeling that the author is speaking to them. This effect is helpful because for some reason it is easyer to understand the same information if it seems like it is said to the reader, it is also easier to remember. This probably doesn't make it all the way to literature, but it is somehow more than a barebones discription. This somewhat goes with what John said about it being a kind of conversation.
Pizza Kings is a charming piece of somewhat humorous literature; it won't make you laugh aloud like 'The Literary Offenses of James Fenimore Cooper', but it may bring a smile. Many variants recieve very little play, while others become popular. In order for a variant to become popular, people have to try it at least once. How do you get your reader interested enough to try playing the game? A good presentation can't hurt. At least if it's interesting to read, people may read it all the way through, and that's a start. Sometimes the idea of the game is sufficiently intriguing in its own right that you get people to play it without anything special in the way of presentation. 'There's nothing in the way of presentation, you can get right at it.' (That's from _It's a Gift_, right?) This was the case with Avalanche. A good presentation is Partonesque. His games were always introduced with a bit of a premise and a bit of whimsy. In other words, like all good literature, it's advertising; or even product placement, as in Refreshing Bubble Fizz Chess. I had a point here somewhere, but it wandered off. Perhaps my point was a neutral piece and my opponent moved it somewhere I can't see it.
I went back and reread Pizza Kings, and it's better than I remembered. Pizza Kings actually had a definite satirical purpose. At that time, people were suggesting various different armies with themes like leaping, or spaciousness, or fizziness. I just extended the theme to something completely irrelevant to chess, and then developed the theme deadpan. Part of the point I was making earlier is that sort of thing is only pleasing in moderation. If I had gone on to invent the Avenging Appetizers and the Beer Batterers, the result would have been far less than three times as amusing. I was also unclear in stating my preference. I much prefer an entertaining and engaging description. I am one of those variantists who actually rarely play, but, concurring with gnohmon's point, I found Nemoroth so fascinating that I am actually playing an email game. That is based on two things: the terrific description, and the original mechanics. In the case of Nemoroth, they cannot be separated. Without the story, the mechanics would seem capricious. Without the unusual mechanics, the story would just be an exercise in cleverness, without point on the CVP. Now, e.g., there is a clear picture in my mind of a Leaf Pile, what it does, and why.
MY personal preference is for CV proposals that contain a minimum of narration and a straight-forward presentation of the author's rules. I'm OK with very brief comments that actually simplify learning the rules, but I have very little interest in extended narratives.
In order to prevent the upper levels from being clogged up, perhaps I should introduce a gravity rule: before a player moves, all of his/her pieces that both (1) haven't moved in the past two turns and (2) have an empty square directly below them descend one level. Or perhaps, when an elevation isn't possible, a 'captured' piece could be placed on any empty square chosen by the capturer.
I have been studying the advices in this thread and examining some of my ideas along this line. The following is what I have developed so far: Pawnless Chess -by Jianying Ji Introduction: This variant is inspired these primary sources: 1: Kevin Maroney's Ur Chess 2: Ralph Betza's Halfling Chess One of the main motivations of this variant is similar to that of Ur Chess in that I was looking for a 'simplified' variant of chess. As I read Ur chess I saw that many of the fiddly rules he was trying to change concerned pawns, so it seemed natural to me to dispense with pawns alltogether. But that led to an immediate problem, which is with the major pieces of FIDE facing each other the opening usually end up with a lot of exchanges and not many pieces on the board after the exchanges end. To combat this, the pieces needs to be weakened and captured pieces recycled. So I used halfling chess to weaken the pieces, and added the capture return rule to recycle the pieces. I changed the knight to halfling Knightrider to strengthen the army a bit so that it won't be too slow. The details follows: Board and Setup: Use standard chess board and setup with the pawns removed r n b q k b n r * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * R N B Q K B N R Rules: 1. All pieces move as they do in halfling chess, except the knight, which becomes a halfling knightrider. Motivation: To weaken the pieces so the opening will be more strategic, rather than tactical. As Peter Aaronson suggested and Ralph Betza showed. 2. A captured piece is returned to the owner, who is to put it back on its starting rank. It is the owner's choice, which open square to put the returned piece on. If the starting rank is fully occupied then the captured piece is discarded. Motivation: Since the ratio of pieces to squares is so low, to start with, this rule will keep more pieces in play longer, for a more tactical and longer endgame. 3. No repetition of a previous board position Motivation: Super-Ko rule is adopted to reduce draws. Object: Checkmate or stalemate the opponent Motivation: Stalemating the opponent is included as a winning condition to reduce draws. Notation: R a1 x a5 [a8] piece source capture destination drop location piece: name of the piece source: starting square capture: x if capture occured, - if non-capturing move. destination: ending square drop location: the location to which the captured piece is dropped Can be abbreviated if no ambiguity arises. Remember, if capture occurs, drop location must be specified. Comments: Shortest fool's mate is 2.5 moves, which is comparable to FIDE, with the added benefit of being more 'foolish'. Tempo is most important in this game. Losing tempo can be fatal. It is even more important than safety of specific pieces. Since pieces are recycled. I have done some playtesting but I would welcome more. And any more suggestions!
This is looking interesting. Have you tried it yet? If you don't have an opponent it would be easy enough to program for Zillions, given that Halflings have been figured out for ZRF.
<p>
In his page on <a href='../dpieces.dir/amontillado.html'>Amontillado
Chess</a>, Ralph Betza speculates that a Halfling Nightrider is worth
in the neighborhood of 1/2 a Queen, or approximately the value of a Halfling Queen. I don't see this as a problem with your game, mind you, but if it is correct players will have to be careful to keep in mind the new balance of power amongst the pieces.
<p>
I do wonder about the piece density -- 16 pieces on 64-squares do seem to rattle around a bit. I suppose you could double the back rows except for the Kings, although I'm not sure that would improve matters.
<p>
I'm not sure if it necessary, but if the game tends to end in draws even with the stalemate rule, you could also add victory by Bare King.
I hve played the game a few times. mate does take time but not impossible, in fact draws should be extremely rare, since captures are nearly impossible and positions can't be repeated, so a mating position will have to come up, and failing that a stalemate position which is also a loss or win depending on the player. Though I am looking for more playtesting. email: [email protected]
<h4 align=center>What's the Value of a White Elephant?</h4>
Here are some thoughts on a variant I've played around with, but never
finished as I was uncertain about the balance. I thought they might
be of minor general interest, so here they are.
<P>
Sometime back, after reading the Piececlopedia article on the <a
href='../piececlopedia.dir/alfil.html'>Alfil</a>, I started thinking about
the other sort of Elephant piece, the one that moves like a Ferz or
one step forward (fWF), found in <A
HREF='../oriental.dir/burmese.html'>Sittuyin</A> (Burmese Chess) as
the Elephant, in <A HREF='../oriental.dir/thai.html'>Makruk</A> (Thai
Chess) as the Thon, and in <A HREF='../shogi.html'>Shogi</A> (Japanese
Chess) as the Silver General.
<P>
It's a simple piece, but what is it worth? A <A
HREF='../piececlopedia.dir/ferz.html'>Ferz</A> is generally accepted
to be worth about 1/2 a Knight (balancing colorboundness with a good
forward move), but how much more does that single forward move add?
I'm not as scientific about these sorts of things like Ralph Betza is,
but it does add a lot. First, an Elephant is not colorbound like a
Ferz is, and second, its forward moves are the same as a <A
HREF='../piececlopedia.dir/man.html'>Commoner's</A>. In fact, you could
look at an Elephant as 5/8's of a Commoner, which is generally considered
a Knight-valued piece and about which Ralph Betza says:
<BLOCKQUOTE>
This is a very short-range and very flexible piece that is much weaker
than a Knight in the opening, very strong in the middlegame if it can
occupy the center, and almost always wins against a Knight or Bishop
in the endgame.
</BLOCKQUOTE>
Of course, an Elephant is less flexible in the endgame where the
opposing pieces very well might not be in front of it. But on the
other hand, it has the three most useful moves of the Commoner for the
opening. So we'll assume 5/8's of a Knight is about right; roughly
two Pawns.
<P>
The next thought I had on the subject was what if I were to combine
the Alfil and the Elephant? This produced a piece that moved one or
two (jumping) diagonally or one square forward. Looking at this, I
realized that if I added a two square jump forward (yielding fWFfDA) ,
I would repeat the shape of the Elephant's move (supposedly four legs
and a trunk) on a slightly larger scale. Thus was born the 'Great
Elephant'.
<P>
Now, what's the Great Elephant's value? It attacks 10 squares on an
empty board, and it is neither colorbound nor colorchanging. The
simplest calculation would be a Knight and a quarter -- 3.75 Pawns.
The lack of colorchanging might kick it up to as much as 4 Pawns.
<P>
OK, the actual variant. Thinking about Ralph Betza's game of <A
HREF='../d.betza/chessvar/ghost.html'>Black Ghost</A>, where black is
given a piece worth less than a Pawn to balance white's first turn
advantage, I decided to give white an Elephant-based army worth a tiny
bit less than black's in order to balance white's first turn advantage.
<h4 align=center>White Elephant Chess</h4>
The rules for <B>White Elephant Chess</B> are as for <A
HREF='../ichess.html'>FIDE Chess</A>, except where stated otherwise.
<P>
White's Bishops are replaced by Elephants (fWF), and Knight's by Great
Elephant's (fWFfDA). Black's array is the usual FIDE array.
<P>
Pawns may promote to any non-Pawn, non-King piece that started the
game on either side (Elephant, Knight, Bishop, Great Elephant, Rook or
Queen).
<hr>
My suspicion (backed up unreliably by Zillions) is that white might be
a tad <STRONG>too</STRONG> weak. I tried adding the Alfil's move to
the white Queen's to produce the Queen Elephant, but that didn't seem
right, either.
Values are different in Shogi, where the drops and 6th-rank limited promotion rules change all values. After I sought out and visited the Shogi equivalent of the Nihon Ki-In (but decided not t play because of my limited shogi experience -- the exercize of finding it on the map and actually finding my way to a remote region of Tokyo was quite rewarding enough!), I downloaded the supremely weak shogi master program from the home of the underdogs, and played quite a bit; and my impression is that (1) having more Pawns is good, but not specific number of Pawns is worth anything; (2) fR == ffN; Gold == Silver == 2 of the previous; R == B == 2 of the previous (although R versus B may often be decisive). But in a 'normal' game, what's a Silver worth? My ancient researches seemed to indicate that adding the forward move+capture of Wazir to something else is worth nearly half as much as adding a whole Wazir; and that adding the sideways moves is worth most of the remaining half-Wazir. For the Ferz, I forget. It's written down somewhere but of course forwards is worth more than half. Thus, the basic estimate for the Silver General is roughly 3/4 of a Knight, and the basic estimat for the Gold General is somewhat more than 3/4 of a Knight. If the simplest possible estimates of the values are taken, then your Elephant may possibly be worth 3/4 N and your Great Elephant may possibly be worth 1.5 N, which is roughly the value of a Rook. According to the shock-troop theory, the combination of weak FfW which have no jumping move and the strong fWfDWA which does have jumping, this combination interferes with the harmonious development of the army; but Philidor's shock-troop theory, although it contains some truth, is not the final word. Morphy showed how one can cause great damage to the opponent by developing the Rook-valued pieces, and his example must be kept in mind when you are playing an army that includes HFD or Great Elephants as R-valued pieces. If the Great Elephant is Rookish in value, then it is logical that splicing equine genes into the Greater Elephant must produce a Q-valued piece; using this in the same army would be consistent but it would be overkill. If my guesses about the elaphantine values are somewhat near correct, then why does your playtesting seem to hint that the army is too weak? In my experience, the unreliable values produced by my pseudoscientific guesses are actually more reliable than playtesting. The most common problem with playtesting is that if you don't know how to use a piece to best advantage, it seems weaker than it really is. Learning to use every possible piece is difficult and time-consuming.
While I am certainly willing to believe in the inaccuracy of playtesting
as
a means of determining the value of pieces (unless, of course, there are
a
great number of games played by strong players), still, I have some
trouble
thinking of the Great Elephant as a Rook-equivalent piece.
<p>
And I wonder. While almost 1/2 the value of the Wazir might come from
its
forward move, does that mean that that forward move necessarily adds 1/2
of the value of a Wazir to a piece, like the Ferz, which already has
considerable forward movement? In the Great Elephant's case, the fWfD
component adds two forward moves to a piece that has four already -- it
seems to me that there ought to be some principle of diminishing returns
here. There is also the strange issue of directional colorboundness;
that
the Elephants are colorbound when moving backwards but not when moving
forwards.
'I have some trouble thinking of the Great Elephant as a Rook-equivalent piece.' It has two full atoms, half of another, and a quarter of another; this puts it already in the Rookish range, though maybe a bit weak. The partial atoms are the forward parts, which must boost it to full Rookitude. You have inspired me to write Captain Spalding Chess, of which the most important feature is that one may find an Elephant in one's Pajama.
<blockquote><i>
It has two full atoms, half of another, and a quarter of another; this puts
it already in the Rookish range, though maybe a bit weak. The partial atoms
are the forward parts, which must boost it to full Rookitude.
</i></blockquote>
Well, as I count it, it has two full atoms, and the quarter of <em>two</em>
others. Now, I am certainly willing to accept that 0.5 of the value of the
W is due to its forward move, but what I am less convinced of, I guess, is
whether the W forward move by itself <strong>adds</strong> that much to of
the value of the W to another piece that already has forward moves. It's
at least an interesting question, I think.
<p>
If the Elephant is 0.75 N, and the Great Elephant is 1.5 N, then the White
Elephants are about 0.5 N too strong (the exact amount depending on your
opinion of the relative values of the N and B). If that's the case, maybe
the Queen should be replaced by the War Elephant, Rook + Alfil Rider (RAA)
-- this should be about the proper balance, since a Rook + Alfil would
be a full 0.5 N weaker than a Queen, but since the Great Elephants are a
tiny bit weaker than Rooks, maybe, and there's the Bishop differential,
the extra strength of the AA over the A ought to just balance things.
<p>
<hr>
Captain Spalding Chess!? -- Marxist!
In the work of creating a chessvariant tournament called ChessWar I came up with the idea of having a chatroom dedicated for chessvariants and more spesific Zillion players (since the tournament will use Zillions to play). What I wonder now is if there are any interest in a chatroom from chessvariant players and creators. It would be a great place to meet other Zillion players since there aren't really any such place at the moment. It would also be a good place to go if you need players to test a game you have created. The room will open during July but I'm very interested to hear thoughts about the idea. Tomas Forsman
i'm just wondering why in most multi-level chesses the boards alternate their patterns (instead of a constant white in the bottom right), and this is the only place i could think to ask. Is it necessary for some reason? Would colorbound pieces be affected adversely if the boards weren't so arranged ? Anyone...anyone...
In Absolutely Colorboundmost Chess, there must be as little interaction as possible between pieces on squares of different colors. As a consequence, there can be no Castling. A further consequence is that you should really play it on two boards, lest the visual clutter become a sort of interaction between the two colors. The big surpsise is that it must be a doublemove game, one move on each color. If you have only one move, and must decide between colors, that is a form of interaction! (Yes, that interaction would make a better game; but the absolute extreme colorboundmost chess has to be doublemove.) Your Q is on the same color as the enemy K. This means that you start with enough material superiority to mate the opponent -- but of course the reverse is also true! I see this as a race game (pushing the boundaries of race games!), and therefore immediately thought of Parton's 'Fair race rule' from Racing Kings: if W gives mate, Black can draw by giving mate in reply. (The question of who wins first is an interaction between the colors, but it is unavoidable in a chess variant.) However, since it's a doublemove game, an even better alternative is to make it 'balanced'. W only gets to make one move first turn. To avoid interaction, the rules must specify on which color W must move on the first turn! Of course all the pieces and Pawns and Kings must be colorbound. (Also, a game with weak interaction played as a singlemove game on a single board would be more interesting; but the first step is to define the most extremely absolute colorboundmost game possible!) Am I correct in thinking that all these consequences follow inevitably from the premise? Have I missed any? Is it interesting that this much of the game can be specified without even thinking about how individual pieces move?
Oops. I forgot while I was writing. There's a specific reason not to use Parton's fair race rule with an absolute doublemove game of Absolute Colorboundmost Chess. The reason is that symmetrical play gives Black a guaranteed draw!
An alternate approach to balancing Colorboundmost Chess would to follow the path used in other double-move variants -- only have white make a single move on their first move. I would suggest having white make their first move on white, so that each player would make the first move on their King's color. Once you have white making only a single starting move, it should no longer be possible for black to mirror white, so race rules could be applied.
I have been adding board measurements for each game to our indexing database. Do people see a need for an index which cross-references games and pieces? This would enable listing all games which use a particular piece, or listing all pieces used in a particular game.
<p>If so, would the pieces be identified based on their movement or on the name of the piece? We could cross reference piececlopedia items with game items, or simply associate a list of piece names with each game. Keep in mind that building a cross reference would be a significant amount of work.
Too much work, I think. I don't think many visitors to this site would want to look up, say, all variants that use a Murray Lion. Or all variants that use a Gryphon. Or whatever. Don't worry about those cross-references. I'm sure you have enough work to do as it is. :-)
google can do a fair job:
<a href="http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=+%22murray+lion%22+site%3Awww.chessvariants.com&ie=ISO-8859-1&hl=en&meta=">http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=+%22murray+lion%22+site%3Awww.chessvariants.com&ie=ISO-8859-1&hl=en&meta=</a>
<p>for example of the murray lion query.
<p>a script that query google probably would be sufficient
I'm with Joseph on this: too much work for the payoff. Think about keeping it up-to-date; whoever's job that was might have no life in a heavy contribution week. Also, listing all the pieces in a game is redundant to the actual game description. If it were done, it would be most useful to be identified by move, rather than name of piece. This would be a sysiphean labor. You would have to create indices based perhaps on funny notation. The syntax of funny notation is ambiguous, in that although it can describe movement precisely, there is more than one way to describe the same movement in many cases.
Quite often we get requests for information about a game that (for instance) is played on a large board and there was a piece called a 'Royal'. Now searching all chessvariant.com pages for the word 'Royal' turns up too many hits. So cross referencing can be useful when looking for games where piece names are commonly used words in other contexts.
<p>Not that I want to do all this work of course, but if there is enough demand for it, perhaps it would be worth it.
currently in the piececlopedia, many of the pieces list all the games that use that piece, even if the piece goes by a different name in a particular game. for example, the piececlopedia page for chancellor - moves as R+N - lists the chancellor from capablanca's chess, the marshall from grandchess, the champion from carrera's chess, etc. i think this is a good idea to have as much as possible, but it also sounds to me like having an automated system for this is not worth the effort. i think we'll have to settle for pointing out any additions to the list to the piececlopedia editor whenever we see something missing.
with so many submissions it might not be feasible to add gamelist to piecelopedia, rather I think it would be perhaps be more helpful for submitters to reference piecelopedia instead, this way everyone add a few links yet the pages becomes more understandable.
i have a question about opposing kings occupying adjacent spaces. I thought this was legal because kings were nuetral. I was told this was illegal, they cannot be next to each other because they would be putting each other in 'check'. Can anyone set me straight on this? Thanks
Martin,<p>
The answer to your frequently-asked question is 'Yes, it is (always) illegal to have your king adjacent to the opponent's king.'
<p>
For more details see <a href='http://chessvariants.com/d.chess/faq.html'>the Rules of Chess FAQ file</a> and the <a href='http://chessvariants.com/d.chess/chess.html'>the Illustrated Rules of Chess</a> page.
I agree with jianying, I think. Cross-referencing all the variants sounds like a LOT of work but not much gain. OTOH, it might be worthwhile to fully cross-reference a subset like the _recognized_ variants, as that's where a lot of the better pieces either originated or were popularized. (Sometimes that influenced how the game drew enough interest to become 'recognized'.)
When I go to sleep at night, I often try to think about something
interesting or pleasant while I drift off. Last night I found myself
thinking about an odd Chess piece.
<p>
The piece moves without capturing like a Dabbabah-Rider (repeated leaps
of two squares in the same orthogonal direction), but captures like a
Rook. So, mDDcWW or mDDcR in Ralph's funny notation.
<p>
And I found myself wondering: how powerful is this piece, and what sort
of game or problem would it be good for? I has a number of curious
characteristics: except for capturing, it is doubly colorbound, being
restricted to 1/4 of the board; and while it can switch by capturing,
at any time it can only attack 1/2 of the board.
<p>
It seems to me that this piece is vaguely cannon-like, being more powerful
in the opening and midgame than the endgame. It also seems to me that it
might be a very charming part of a piece mix. Any thoughts?
It seems like a most interesting piece indeed. Such a piece could be the basis for a variant along the lines of Ralph Betza's Colorboundmost Chess. I will post details as a comment to Colorboundmostr Chess.)
Hmm... very interesting. Did you consider the Bishop/Queen equivalents? Or even (gasp) the Nightrider equivalent (moves as a 2/4 rider or captures as a 1/2 rider)? The latter seems like an especially odd piece, preferably for use on really big boards. And how would a king like this work? Move as an Alf./Dab. and capture like a king, or capture like an Alf/Dab/King? And would a CV in which every piece is like this work well?
I considered the Bishop equivalent, but decided it would likely be
too weak.
<p>
Mike Nelson has proposed a game based on these sorts of pieces -- you
can see it in the comments for Colorboundmost Chess. My suspicion is
that there would not be enough power in the board in the endgame, making
the game drawish.
Perhaps this would make it less drawish: The King moves as a Ferz and captures as a King (mFcK) and cannot castle. The former change means less force is needed in the endgame, the latter enhances the chance of a middle game victory.
I think the weakened King might to the trick, though I would express the funny notation as FcW. The resulting game ought certainly to be different!
This odd piece oddly is almost a rook worth in the endgame. It still has the can-mate property, except for the rare case that the bared king is in the secure corner (If the odd piece is on a1, the secure corner is a8). In the most cases it can block the secure corner and the bared king is driven by zugzwang towards a mate. The secure spots left by the odd piece are all single fields without secure neighbours -- thus a bare king must leave them. --J'org Knappen
Jörg, I'm not sure about the can-mate part. It seems to me that in a lot
of situations the piece would result in stalemate, not mate.
<p><hr><p>
Mike, I threw together a crude ZRF of your game last night -- it seems to
play OK. But I was wondering if stalemate ought to be a loss instead of
a draw, as the nature of the game makes it more likely, as does,
unfortunately, changing the King from WF to FcW.
<p>
By the way, do you have a name for it?
No, the odd piece does not have the 'can-mate' property. If the odd piece (mDDcR) is on the seventh rank holding the bare enemy K on the eighth while the friendly K moves in, the odd piece can't move to the eighth rank to mate! If the odd piece is on the sixth rank, it can't hold the enemy K on the eighth--the whole seventh rank is safe. Two of the odd pieces, one on a even-numbered rank (or file) and one on an odd-numbered rank (or file) should mate easily.
100 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.