Ratings & Comments

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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!

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?

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

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'.)