I must apologize here for announcing checkmate... it is in Fide chess but here we actually have one more move for Black and then I (as White) will win by playing Q x K which cannot be prevented. In Dimension X a King must actually be captured... I temporarily overlooked that detail.
Thanks. It was an exciting game. And the Templar game itself is one of my favorites. An excellent game.
That Spider move of black's is not legal. Spiders move only 1 space at a time. Crabs also move one space. Snakes move 2 spaces. Also, if you move from DimensionX to Fide you must move to the same relative square, e.g., E4-e4; F5-f5; etc. and visa-versa.
Black is using a Bishop... it should be a Dragon Horse... Can move like King or Bishop.
The point of a Warp point 'not being capturable' is to allow it to penetrate the opponent's lines... acting sort of as a dangerous Star Gate. Logical play would be to have one forward Warp point (deep into enemy lines) and one back Warp Point. So I think Warp Points should not be captureable. However- If a Medusa piece (or 2?) were added to each side, then a player could use that to turn-off the Warp Point function [while the Medusa]was adjacent to any enemy warp point. The Medusa would (like the one in Mini POM) could freeze and capture pieces, but in regard to Warp Points, could only turn them off.
Note that if a K + Q were against a lone King, that lone King could not Time Travel as he is required to have a friendly piece or pawn... so in these cases a King could not just venture off to escape mate. In general: (1) When your last piece or pawn is taken, and you have only a King Time Traveling then he will be Lost In Time (a game loss). (2) If you have a piece(s) and or pawn(s) but have no legal moves, then even if you have a Time Traveling King the game is drawn. In summary - If you have no material and a Time Traveling King - you can lose due to a Loss in Time condition. If you have material, but no legal moves (such as a blocked pawn) you will have a draw.
The Medusas can do more than freeze adjacnet pieces. From the rules: ' The Medusa, in addition to capturing pieces, will 'turn adjacent-square pieces to stone.' '
Jeremy, you are correct about 'outflanking' in Go, and that the 'center' concept is not a real issue. In Go there are often many independent skirmishes. Lines 'live' and 'die.' Surround and conquer is the method of battle... the lack of individual piece movement is what keeps Go out of the CV category, in my opinion, of course.
I think the same can safely be said for Alice Chess and Double-Bug House. But for many large war games (and some very large board games) I think the game board can be divided into several battlezones, each of which have their own center-of action. These 'virtual centers' can shift and can even dissapear. But this scenario, I believe, is more applicable to (or at least more typical of) Avalon Hill type war simulation games.
For USCF chess e4, d4, e5, d5 are considered to be (and are mathematically) the center squares. They can be controlled from a distance of course... or indirectly via some threat. I believe you are aware of this, but I make the comment for the benefit of a new player who may happen by.
Gary Gifford wrote on
Control of center is indeed important. But some unorthodox players, such as Michael Basman will abandon the center - or rather delay its occupation by starting out on one or both sides and then later pinching the center. In Cannons of Chesstonia players can move a Cannon back and forth and simply avoid movement on the 8x8 portion board... thus avoiding central occupation as well as occupation of either flank. I think that this lack of development could proove itself harmful, should the opponent of such a plan avoid serious error.