Kibbitz Listing
wrote on Nice game! In retrospect, Roberto's move 39, capturing the g Pawn was critical. Also, the Rook sacrifice in move 43 was neat and effective in reducing material. At move 49, as Roberto pointed out, there were interesting chances for both. Fergus' c and d passed Pawns, however, were harder to promote with the White King blocking. Nicely played by both!
wrote on Joe, if you send the preset URL to the editors we can post your preset for this game.
wrote on 3...l f8-f6 mostly to defend from 4. A g1-g5, taking Pawn, as well as to
develop the Long-Leaper.
Zillions seems to agree with me here. It would respond with 4. L g1-g4,
threatening Black's Long-Leaper, an interesting move willing to trade the
Advancer for the Long-Leaper.
wrote on Larry's idea for protecting the anti-king in the end game is interesting.
<p>Roberto makes an interesting observation that the strategy with respect to material is not maximization, like in chess, but optimization, which is actually a balance, depending on the position. Antoine's reply that material is always an advantage because it provides more options is very keen. However, Roberto's observation that a well placed sacrifice can lead to an anti-checkmate combination seems accurate.
<p>Roberto's observation about a strategic decision to keep the AK either in front or behind the opponent's Pawns is important. Antoine's suggestions for forcing this decision without exposing one's King is the start for AK Chess opening theory, it seems. At first thought, I would be inclined to keep the AK in front of the Pawns, since this would seem to provide more options in the middle game, although harder to maintain in the opening.
<p>Based on these interesting comments, it seems that 3. P c2-c3 may be a good move, with the objective of forcing a decision on the AK's strategy. Of course, e3 is available, as Antoine observes. Another advantage of this move it that it prevents the advance of Black's Knight to b4 and d4. It also would support a future, P d2-d4. It also maintains an open diagonal for the King's Bishop.
<p>This move, however, delays development of the pieces. But, as Roberto observes, material advantage is always a balance in this game.
<p>Zillions is undecided about the next move, with some preference for 3. c4. This would seem to force the AK to decide to either retreat or remain behind the Pawns. I think that Antoine's 3. c3 is superior.
<p>
<p>
wrote on Opening the Advancer diagonal was intended primarily to develop the advancer and the Long-Leaper not attack the a-file Pawn. Why would this be bringing it out early?
<p>I am considering, 2... p b7-a6. The purpose would be to develop the Immobilizer diagonal and the b-file for the Withdrawer. Another purpose would be to begin to defend against the advance of White's Immobilizer.
<p>Another option is 2... p d7-d6. This opens the diagonals for the Chameleon and Long Leaper. It also beings to defend against the Immobilizer.
<p>The alternative would be to develop a piece, such as, 2... f8-f6, defends against the Immobilizer and also moves to control the center.
<p>carlos' comment about Pawn structure is interesting.
wrote on Following Peter's logic a bit, I am considering 1...p f7-g6. The purpose would be to open the diagonals for the Advancer and the f-file for the Long-Leaper. Opening a diagonal for the Advancer might counteract the future advance of the White Long-Leaper. It also allows development of the LL. The general goal would be similar to standard Chess, develop the pieces and stablish control of the center. Advancing the f-Pawn also counteracts White's advance.
<p>Interestingly, Zillions would respond with 1...p e7-f6.
<p>Peter, I have a question about the Long-Leaper move rule: can it capture an adjacent piece? The minirules say LL may never jump over adjacent pieces, but Zillions allows it. The automated moves also show the ability to capture adjacent pieces. Am I misreading the description?
wrote on Either c7-c5 or e7-e5 seem like good moves. 1...e7-e5 might have had the advantage of opening a Bishop diagonal, but it also adds another attacker for the Anti-King.
<p>The opening is quite different from standard Chess in that the Anti-Kings interfere with development. I'm considering 2. P b2-b3. The purpose would be to open the Queen's Bishop diagonal. It also has the advantage of blocking the advance of your Pawn on the c-file. The alternative could be 2. P g2-g3 to open the other King's Bishop's file. This may be the better alternative to remove the Bishop threat to the Anti-King. Standard development of the Bishops by advancing the Queen and King Pawns does not seem practical.
wrote on Greg, you are correct, of course. I got the friendly versus the opposing Anti-King confused. My 'goals' should be reversed.
In that light, 1. P e2-e4 is a neutral move; since the Anti-King is still attacked by the King's Bishop.
wrote on It seems to me that the opening of Anti-King Chess II should have the following goals: 1) control of the center, 2) development of pieces, 3) continuing threat of the opposing Anti-King, 4) isolating the friendly Anti-King. The first two goals coincide with standard chess and are more important. Like checkmate of the King, checkmate of the Anti-King will likely be a goal of the late-middle or end game. Based on the above, I would suggest that 1. P e2-e4 is a good opening move. The threat to the Anti-King is maintained.
wrote on Observe this open-kibbitz game! You can make any kibbitz comment during the game as long as it is polite and constructive. You need not worry about influencing the players. Comments suggesting moves, lines of play, strategy, or constructive criticism are welcome, especially if your reasoning is expressed. The main purpose of this game is study of Anti-King Chess II rather than competition. Even comments informed by computer analysis or other sources are welcome as long as the source is made clear in the comments and your reasoning for the suggestion is expressed. The players will make use of the comments as they see fit in making their moves.
wrote on Carlos, good game. Thanks.
wrote on Please note changes in the Charge and Rapid Mobilization special rules. No more changes will be made.
wrote on The slow pieces with a lot of latitude, combined with a few longer-moving pieces, on a large board, makes for a very interesting, positional game.
wrote on Charles, Peter: I took the liberty of revising your log to use the new Spratt piece set. I did this because with recent updates the minirules no longer refered to the Alfaerie piece set and there was no longer any reference to the old images. I hope this is not too much of an inconvenience. Note also that you can individually change from the black and white set to a color set by selecting from the available Imperial Chess set options. If there are any errors or problems, please let me know.
wrote on The board looks great! This is quite fun, enhanced by the figures, the colors and the map-board!
wrote on The piece mix is interesting. I like the mix of different range pieces. The promotion rule is neat, you actually add a new piece when you promote. The promoting, non-capturing pieces are very innovative.
wrote on Fergus Duniho fixed the castling bug.
wrote on Thomas, thanks. I enjoyed the game. Well played. Best to you in the rest of the tournament! -- Tony.
wrote on There seems to be a bug in the Chess rules enforcement for Black castling, either kingside or queenside. I have reported it to Fergus Duniho. White castling seems to be ok.
wrote on Fergus, good game.
wrote on Michael, you are right! Thanks for pointing this out. The issue is moot, since I lost anyway....
wrote on I e-mailed Eric asking whether he wished to continue the game of Tamerspiel I have ongoing with him. He replied that he did, but must postpone play for the time being. I decided to retain my log to keep the game active. In another game, I also e-mailed my opponent with a similar question after a couple of months of inactivity, but got no reply, so I deleted the log.
wrote on Michael, do you want this game posted in the CVP?
wrote on Observe this end-game! Very dramatic. Victory or defeat hangs by a thread for both sides.
wrote on Good game!
wrote on I am making a traditional Pawn response here, but a response with a Knight move also could have been effective.
wrote on White seems to be trying some kind of gambit, or I may just be falling into a trap!
wrote on Observe this game of Hexes Chess now starting. Its an interesting small variation of Glinski's Chess with added Pawn mobility. Nice!
wrote on Observe this opening. This game has some elements of Go. The throwing of stones is positional and strategic. The game play has a pleasing aesthetic too.
wrote on Observe Roberto's last move. He makes a very interesting discover check by a Pawn with his Coordinator.
wrote on Excellent game of Wizard's War. The game became simplified to Rook-Kings and 2 Rooks each. The value of time in this game was highlighted at the end as critical material on the Arena was developed for a final set of trades. The threat of the holding pieces in hand was more present than actually used. The value of being able to drop a piece in hand and thereby gaining in development made this option a disinsentive to capturing in the Enchanted Squares. Great game.
wrote on The game is now critical!
wrote on The cards look great! This certainly adds an interesting dimension to both Chess and Game Courier.
wrote on This is a copy of an ongoing e-mail game with Larry L. Smith. My early attack with Attack Boards may or may not be a good idea. This is a flanking game and control of the Attack Boards is crucial. Movement between the main boards is only possible through the Attack Boards. Control of the Neutral board may be of some value. We'll see! The 3-D configuration is a real mind-bender, but the movement rules are clear and classical.
wrote on A very interesting game. Move 15 is a forced capture of a Pawn by the Bishop on the border *instead* of the King evading the attacking Queen! The King capture condition along with the obligatory border capture rule made Peter's combination possible. Very nice! (I'll take another rematch sometime, Peter!)
wrote on I would say that kibbitzers should be free to make relevant comments.