Kibbitz Listing Game: Modern Shatranj Log: panther-cvgameroom-2018-90-225 Joe Joyce wrote on 2018-06-28Aargh! Talk about hitting the wrong button! Game: Granlem Shatranj Log: joejoyce-catugo-2018-7-308 Joe Joyce wrote on 2018-01-10There are a number of two-step pieces in the game. They may take both steps of their normal move, but only once. A piece may not make its normal move, 'commanded' by 1 leader, then make a second move, 'commanded' by another leader. Yes, a leader must be in a section at the start of the turn for a piece in that section to move. As for the jumping general, I clarified the language. The 2 pieces which together make up the jumping general are the modern versions of the elephant and war machine, not the ancient versions. Hope this answers all your questions. Game: Modern Shatranj D Log: erik-cvgameroom-2017-317-652 Joe Joyce wrote on 2017-11-18Interesting position here. "Fortresses" on the king side. White almost looks like he castled. Game: Great Shatranj Log: catugo-cvgameroom-2017-302-515 Joe Joyce wrote on 2017-11-01Promotion clarified: * you may always promote to a 'general', the non-royal king * you may recover up to 4 LOST pieces through promotion, 1 elephant, 1 knight, 1 rook, and 1 of either the minister or high priestess * lost pieces may be recovered as soon as the first piece of the pair is lost as there is no requirement for both pieces in a pair to be lost before one is returned to the board through pawn promotion. If you find this understandable and complete (with the original rules-set) then I will add it to the rules. If you still don't clearly see how promotion works, comment in-game or in a kibbitz, and we'll get the language right. And thanks for playing the game. JoeGame: Grand Shatranj Log: joejoyce-cvgameroom-2014-171-191 Joe Joyce wrote on 2015-12-19Hello, Carlos, and thanks. I will be happy to pick up this game with you again. You played a previous game very well - iirc, I was lucky to draw, and I have not played any variants since I was last visibly here. I have been looking in on the site, and even doing the occasional bit of editorial work, once in a while. I do not expect to take up more than a game or two at any time, but this design is one of my personal favorites, and you are one of the best players onsite. It will take me a little while to get back into the game, which I had totally forgotten about, as it is a rather different sort of game. I hope you are well. Too many people I knew here are no longer around, and I miss them. Heh, and none of us are getting any younger. (I will be 68 in March.) Merry Christmas, amigo. Game: Chesimals I Log: avunjahei-cvgameroom-2015-155-920 Joe Joyce wrote on 2015-09-16How easy or impossible it is to catch a lone 'brain' unit depends, I believe, very strongly on the size and make-up of the piece(s) chasing the brain unit. Essentially a brain unit has to be trapped against the edge of the board before it can be captured. This depends strongly on the number of guard/commoner pieces the chasing side has, I think, as they are the ones that interdict a 3x3 area, something the brain unit cannot cross in 1 move. In your experience, how easy or difficult is it to make legal moves with a multi-unit piece?Joe Joyce wrote on 2015-08-18Hello, Cameron, Georg. Again, thanks for giving this game a play. Seeing it being played was what inspired me to design Critters: Chesimals III. This series of games has gotten very little play, and I'm afraid it shows. I like the idea (blather on about it in the CVwiki under 'Pond Scum' and related pages) and think it can be developed into some large but spectacular games. To me, the pieces felt cramped on the 'small' 12x16 board. Chesimals II was an attempt to keep the small board but make the pieces livelier and give them a little more room, and Critters is a leap of faith, but in some ways a step back. A step back because I include some playtested ideas from related games which in some ways destroy the idea of a chesimal because unit swapping between friendly chesimals destroys the individuality of each chesimal, making it a somewhat random collection of available units that currently make up 'this' chesimal. But either or both of you may have different opinions, and like the idea of all chesimals moving each turn, and allowing them to swap units around, so they don't block each other's movements. What would you change, and what would you keep the same? Finally, do you really think these games, and their sister games, are essentially drawish? I haven't found that to be the case generally, but haven't played many games, not to judge something like that. It is clear, however, the smallest versions (these games are scalable) are extremely drawish. As they get larger, reality overwhelms perfection, and draws go away, in my experiences with related games. From your in-game comments, it sounds like you've had different experiences.Joe Joyce wrote on 2015-06-25Thank you for giving this game a shot. I would appreciate any comments you might have, good, bad, ugly, or downright hostile! ;) This is very much an 'idea game', and I suspect the idea might be a little better than this initial implementation. I might like to see this done with pieces which have a little more 'oomph' and a lot more room. If you turn the idea around a bit, and start with 1 brain unit and 5 - 25 units, where the units are rated by how far they can operate from the brain unit(s), you can get a better approximation of a one-celled, or at least a unitary, creature. Game: Great Shatranj Log: joejoyce-francoistremblay28-2010-266-124 Joe Joyce wrote on 2010-09-28You've gone into the game 'the wrong way'. Either click on the link in any of the email notifications you received that it was your turn, or go to 'what's New' at chessvariants.org, click on the top item there - the most recent game courier move. This will take you to the Game Courier logs page. Enter your name and password there, and submit. When your list of games comes up, click on your name rather than the game log itself, to get to the game. I think that's right. Any problems, let me know.Joe Joyce wrote on 2010-09-28Make sure your username and password are typed into all the boxes required. That's the first thing to check. I'm assuming you haven't changed your password or anything like that.Game: Catapults of Troy Log: joejoyce-judgmentality-2009-245-432 Joe Joyce wrote on 2009-11-02I think black's last move might better have been Ram h11-g11, or moving the catapult/king to f11, say, would allow the king to step off the catapult and capture the Trojan horse. That not only guards the g10 square, which I had originally intended to occupy, but it guards or blocks the g11 square. Had I then played Trojan horse [knight + archer] to g10, you could even have traded the ram for the Trojan horse, and, as far as I can see, come out ahead. Game: Grand Shatranj Log: judgmentality-nicholaswolff1-2009-170-265 Joe Joyce wrote on 2009-08-20Nick, your first move should be: ''k-d10;'' and then the move you should have made can go after the semicolon. On the other hand, your king can be considered extremely well-protected by means of a cloaking device. :-) Game Courier can play some strange tricks on you. I once lost a piece to a blank square, in a game of Hyperchess with Abdul-Rahman Sibahi, and neither of us noticed it. Or I didn't, anyway, until long afterward, when I was transcribing the game. Game: Lemurian Shatranj Log: judgmentality-nicholaswolff1-2009-170-279 Joe Joyce wrote on 2009-08-18Yes. It is mate. That bent 2-step guard is a nasty piece.Game: Chieftain Chess Log: judgmentality-nicholaswolff1-2009-170-267 Joe Joyce wrote on 2009-07-02I'm so sure there is no first move advantage in this game that the next time we play, I will let you start as white and I will pass my first turn as black, giving white 2 turns of supposed first move advantage, to demonstrate my position. ;-) Heck, maybe I'll make a 1-year challenge to all comers to prove any first move advantage by playing black and passing turn 1. Would that demonstrate this game has NO first move advantage? Game: Hullabaloo Log: judgmentality-cvgameroom-2009-143-858 Joe Joyce wrote on 2009-06-06How about: [D+W]/[A+F] This specifies it is either a linear hero or a linear shaman in its movement.Game: Atlantean Barroom Shatranj Log: judgmentality-cvgameroom-2009-144-538 Joe Joyce wrote on 2009-06-02Hm, not sure how to do this better. Here are the relevant rules: 'Zigzag general, a bent 2-step rider. Moves twice as the jumping general*. It may move 1 square or leap 2 squares orthogonally or diagonally, then may do any of the 4 possible move types again. Thus it may move 1, 2, 3, or 4 squares in a turn. It may change directions between its first and second step. Null moves are not allowed.' 'Jumping General. Moves as either the elephant [AF] or warmachine [DW]. It may move 1 square or leap 2 squares orthogonally or diagonally. It is a linear piece.' Each individual step of the ZiZag General's 2 steps is linear. The step is 1 or 2 squares. The 2 square leap is always straight, leaping over an adjacent square to the next one directly across from the original square. The ZZG cannot make a knight's leap in one step. Again, all its individual moves are linear. It changes direction between steps only. I hope this helps. As a side note, the zigzag general can reach all but 16 of the 80 closest squares, and Vitya, you picked one of those 16 squares. :)Game: Directed Alice Chess III Log: grayhawke-joejoyce-2009-65-573 Joe Joyce wrote on 2009-03-12Hmmm, I hadn't thought of that. I've been playing Scott McGreal with the optional first-step parton transition and the mandatory second-step one. Using a different rule in this game could prove tricky, but it's a nice option, certainly in the spirit of the movement rules I've been using, crud! Remind me every once in a while that the rule is different in the 2 games, lol! Game: Stealth Ninja Chess Log: joejoyce-frozen_methane-2008-303-720 Joe Joyce wrote on 2009-01-11Fergus, is there any way to check the time that was available for Charles from my last move. I was unaware that Charles was running out of time, and I strongly suspect he was, too. Game: HiveQueen Log: joejoyce-interrupt27-2008-268-240 Joe Joyce wrote on 2008-11-30Uh-oh! The *workers* step 1; the warriors don't. Lol! Oops. Rats! ;-)Game: Save the Standard 13x13 Log: joejoyce-graemecn-2008-303-722 Joe Joyce wrote on 2008-11-08Graeme, is this move legal: 'rm7-yb7;ye7-yd7;yc7-' ?Game: Ultima Log: mathemagician-hambledon-2008-272-656 Joe Joyce wrote on 2008-10-10Scott and Chad, sorry to be breaking in on your game comments like this. Fergus, the ability of game courier to accept close to 50 moves is something a few designers are beginning to use. If you are going to 'fix' that, please use an adjustable parameter with an upper boundary as high as possible. Thank you.Game: Shogi Log: hambledon-sdc.stats-2008-256-740 Joe Joyce wrote on 2008-09-29Gentlemen, I know little about shogi, but I do know this. You must, in your turn, move one piece without dropping a piece, or drop one piece without moving any piece. The original shogi rules do not allow moving a piece you have dropped this turn. On the other hand, it should speed the game up... ;-)Game: Ultima Log: mathemagician-family-2008-237-788 Joe Joyce wrote on 2008-09-05This is a family site. Genteel trash talk is fine. :-)Game: Chieftain Chess II Log: david_64-joejoyce-2008-91-546 Joe Joyce wrote on 2008-07-31I've been curious about piece values in this game. Clearly, the chief is the strongest piece in this whole series of games; the rookish in Overlord is the only current piece that comes close to the chief's power as a piece. The guard is an interesting piece here; it is the only non-'royal' piece that attacks its 8 neighboring squares, and thus can block the movement of the enemy chiefs. But it's the slowest piece, slower than any other piece including the royal piece. This plays into the results of this game. A really even game between 2 players has a very good chance to end in a draw, like here, where we traded 44 pieces, losing 22 each, and leaving just 10 of the original 32 per side. It is not clear what is minimum sufficient advantage to force a win, and I suspect it changes as the gameboards get bigger.Game: Janus Chess Log: joejoyce-david_64-2008-52-143 Joe Joyce wrote on 2008-06-07Thank you for the congratulations, David. I seem to have picked a good time to have finally won a game against you. This officially ends CV Tournament #3 - maybe I should tell carlos. Game: Jacks and Witches Log: donutdonut-gwduke-2008-113-547 Joe Joyce wrote on 2008-05-01George, you don't show up on my list of members. Go here: http://chessvariants.wikidot.com/system:join and try to join. Email me with any any error messages. JoeGame: Modern Shatranj Log: tchervenkov-jejujeju-2008-30-534 Joe Joyce wrote on 2008-05-01This is either a stalemate win for black, or a 1-move checkmate for black, depending on which rule is used. I quote from the rules: 'Stalemate counts as a win.** ... **Pritchard cites a rule variation that is not mentioned by all authors: A stalemated King may be transposed with one of its other pieces, as long as this does not result in check.' If the transposition is allowed, K-h5 swaps with P-h4, then r-h8 mate. Game: Voidrider Chess Log: joejoyce-mschmahl-2008-52-143 Joe Joyce wrote on 2008-03-27Sorry, guys, yet another rules question: The rules on moving squares state: 'it is illegal to move a space to any orthogonally isolated location, that is to any location where it will not share a side with another space' This is my question: can I move a square so that it follows that rule, but leaves another square only diagonally connected to the board? I have a rook and bishop, adjacent to each other, sticking out of the left side of my position. I can slide a pawn and square sideways in front of the bishop, which gives me 3 squares in a row, bishop in the middle, off the left side of my board. Could I then slide the bishop and its square back into the original board field, leaving the pawn and square only diagonally attached? I believe the answer is 'Yes'. But the rules do not stipulate, and I've been wrong before. Is there anyone who knows for sure? Game: Capablanca Random Chess Log: joejoyce-jejujeju-2008-30-526 Joe Joyce wrote on 2008-03-20Musta been a tough night - of course it's h8, not g8 - my apologies - am resending last move if you wish to castle correctly. JoeJoe Joyce wrote on 2008-03-20Hey je ju; you should be able to castle just by moving the rook: j8-g8. Game: Voidrider Chess Log: joejoyce-mschmahl-2008-52-143 Joe Joyce wrote on 2008-03-20My apologies for the illegal move, Michael. Heh, unfortunately, while I was expecting your voidrider move a couple turns ago, the only defense I had was that sideways pawn move. I believe you have just shot my battleplan to little, tiny pieces. Wanna talk about neutrinos? ;-) Anyway, it may take me a while to reply... [AaaarrrgghhhHHhhHHhhh!]Game: Modern Shatranj Log: bruck-moonbuzz-2006-140-834 Joe Joyce wrote on 2008-02-20A very pretty opening; is it a classic shatranj opening? Is there a good spot for finding shatranj openings on the internet [in English only, unfortunately... yeah, typical American :( ]Game: Mir Chess 32 Log: joejoyce-adrian-2007-316-493 Joe Joyce wrote on 2008-02-06Yes, darn it, it was a time-out. I've picked up far too many wins that way. On the other hand, I've had games that didn't have time limits where my opponent stopped moving, often enough in a lost or losing position, so I favor time losses. Glad I decided to go for the win - tried a risky move sequence with the cannon instead of trading it for a knight, heading into a drawn position, and asking for the draw. But somehow, I think you're right, and don't think Adrian was paralyzed by the brilliance of my last moves, lol! I suspect he was distracted by outside forces... ;-) [Go, GIANTS!] [and I'm a Jets fan] Anyway, I believe he made a move a little while ago in another game, Janus, so he's still playing.Game: Shatranj of Troy Log: tchervenkov-joejoyce-2007-317-625 Joe Joyce wrote on 2008-01-31Now that I got that out of my system, thanks for the game. I think we went a little too defensive, though... ;-)Joe Joyce wrote on 2008-01-30Black has about a 2.5 point advantage, but I can't see it as sufficient to [allow me to] force a win, or even force the game to a decisive point. Both sides positions are defense-oriented. White has no real attack against Black, and Black is only capable of picking up a pawn but leaving a trashed position at the cost of dropping all in-hand pieces while leaving white with 1 or 2 in hand. Any serious attack black mounts can be met by a greater counter-attack, given current board geometry and the in-hand pieces of both sides. This is also true of White. As far as I can see, we've developed trench warfare on the chessboard here. Playing defensively for another 30 turns of inconclusive chess while hoping the other guy makes an exploitable blunder, and then agreeing to a draw, doesn't sound that exciting. So, much as I hate to do it, I'll accept your draw offer, Todor. After all, you might be the one to get the break - heh, you missed one chance to either mate me or at least get the advantage in pieces. About the time I dropped the rook on my back rank, you had an opportunity to drop all your pieces into my back ranks for a devastating attack... I think. That's why I played defensively then, anyhow. ;-)Game: Mir Chess 32 Log: joejoyce-adrian-2007-316-493 Joe Joyce wrote on 2008-01-27Hey Adrian, regarding your last in-game comment, if I trade cannon for knight, we draw, because that leaves our forces perfectly even and balanced across the board: easy to defend, tough to attack. Game: Templar Chess Log: joejoyce-penswift-2007-232-317 Joe Joyce wrote on 2007-11-17Nice job, Gary; congratulations! You outplayed me here; maybe I'll get ya next time. Enjoy! JoeGame: Modern Shatranj Log: judgmentality-mageofmaple-2007-245-694 Joe Joyce wrote on 2007-10-10Interesting difference in styles here. [Jeremy, you've been perfecting that style on me!] JoeGame: Fusion Chess Log: judgmentality-joejoyce-2007-270-699 Joe Joyce wrote on 2007-10-10Hey, Jeremy, I thought so, too, but... If you are good with that [a fissioning piece checking*], then I certainly am. I had no wish to spend a few moves here and there setting up a move that I then couldn't do because the rules don't allow it. * You know, the thought occurred to me that if the characteristics of pieces changed when they fuse or fission, then check could be given by a piece that was part of a compound that could not give check, or could allow 2 pieces that by themselves couldn't give check to fuse into something that could. You might also have 2 pieces fuse into 2 other pieces, though the mechanics could prevent it. Hope this paragraph makes some sense...Joe Joyce wrote on 2007-10-08Here we go again! As I cannot trust my reading of the rules, and this is a tournament game, I have to ask this question: Can a piece that has just split away from a compound piece and lands on an empty square give check, or must it move such that it cannot give check? For example, in this game, could I split my queen on d8 into a stationary rook and a bishop that goes to the rook file, on h4, with check? It's my opponent's turn; I'm sure he will be interested in the answer, too. Thank you, whomever, for any help.Joe Joyce wrote on 2007-09-30Thank you, Antoine, David, Abdul-Rahman. I certainly can't look for anything more authoritative than Fergus' description. Case closed. Expected this outcome, but you can't kill a guy for trying, unless, of course, you're a spy, like Nathan Hale, where they can kill you for trying. Chess is much more civilized [right!]; but I do get at least a mutator to play with from this game, if not a full-blown variant, in Fluid Chess. I find dissatisfaction with a game is quite a spur to modest variants, at least.Joe Joyce wrote on 2007-09-30Can't hold up the game too much with a question on rules. Guess I'll make this move anyway. I still don't consider the question resolved, but must continue playing. Hope I'll get a positive answer before the next move, but am not expecting any authoritative declarations. I suspect the answer, if any, won't be positive for me. As I read them, the rules are written to allow what I suggest. But there is no positive declaration that my idea is allowed, and what Abdul-Rahman says is quite true, a loose interpretation of the rules does support the negative viewpoint. Annoying, that I have to do what Fergus meant, and not what he said. Blast, in a situation like this, we need an unambiguous authority, and a backup to handle questions the authority may be asking/involved in somehow. The primary authority here [probably] should be Carlos, since he's the one continuing the tournament. The backup? Any senior member of CV, maybe. Antoine would be a very likely choice, but there are many others, and I'm not trying to stick Antoine with an unasked-for job. I do think we need to establish a structure to hanndle these sorts of things, since they seem to come up often enough.Joe Joyce wrote on 2007-09-30Uh, hi, David. I see you got in between Abdul-Rahman's answer and my reply. You are both very possibly right, but I'm missing it in the rules - 'it' being a definitive answer to my observation on how components fission out of a compound. And I will have to write up a brief explanation of 'Fluid Chess'. Fluid Chess allows 2 friendly pieces to occupy the same square at any time, but no more than 2. Pieces may combine and separate, like Fusion, but may not only leave one combo piece and create another on the same move, but may move through single friendly pieces. Got a few more wrinkles, but that's the basic idea. Hoping to get a more definitive answer, or an authoritative one, and fearing I'll offer up another dud variant, I remain Lost in YonkersJoe Joyce wrote on 2007-09-30Hi, Abdul-Rahman! Thank you very much for your answer. However, I would like to respectfully disagree with you. Your first and second sentences would make sense together if there was a requirement to stop in an empty square. The rules do not say that. It is merely required that the fissioning piece have an empty square to move into, which exists in the scenario I proposed. Clearly, from the empty square rule, a queen couldn't split and add either component, B or R, to an adjacent knight. Yet that does not prevent the fissioning piece from travelling farther, and there is only an ambiguity there, as it says 'to *an* empty square' [emphasis added]. But the rule also says that the component is just a component, plain and simple, once it has successfully emerged from the compound. Specifically, it is a 'simple piece'. 'Simple pieces may combine by moving...' So, unless the fissioning piece stops on an adjacent empty square [except the knight, which stops on a non-adjacent empty square], then the rules, as written, do not prohibit what I proposed, unless I am misunderstanding them. I will wait a little before moving, to have this resolved first, hopefully.Joe Joyce wrote on 2007-09-30Question: if I play 2 ... N g8-f6, can I then play 3 ... B d8-f6? This move takes the B from the queen, a BR combo, and slides it two squares to merge with the knight in a BN combo. So, in 1 turn, can you legally deconstruct a queen and construct a paladin? I see no prohibition in the rules. I also cannot pull up any games to look at; when I try, all that shows are the 3 versions of this game. I assume this game must have been played before. If so, possibly error messages Jeremy got when he tried to get to the first 2 to move, and the disappearance [?] of other games are related?Game: Cataclysm Log: judgmentality-joejoyce-2007-161-466 Joe Joyce wrote on 2007-09-14Hey Greg - Jeremy was looking at an alternate piece set, and flipped the pieces here to it, but hasn't yet flipped them back - I'm waiting for him to do so, so I can move a piece I understand...lolGame: Texas Two-Step: an obscure political commentary Log: carlos-jejujeju-2007-249-291 Joe Joyce wrote on 2007-09-08Hi, Je Ju. Sorry for the ambiguous answer, but I couldn't resist. :-( I wrote the rules so the answer to that question would be ambiguous, as you realized when you got my politically safe 'yes'. I hope winning this game eases the pain of that answer. [You've obviously won, since Carlos and you both believe the knights do have legal moves.] Thank you for actually trying this out. When I designed it, I pushed pieces a lot, and decided it's a good training device, if nothing else. I think at best it's all but impossible to win by your maneuverings, but very easy to lose; one misstep is about all it takes unless your opponent doesn't capitalize on it. This game may not be winnable in a traditional sense. JoeJoe Joyce wrote on 2007-09-07Yes. ;-) [This *is* a 'political' game]Game: Avalanche Chess Log: judgmentality-rodriguez-2007-232-291 Joe Joyce wrote on 2007-08-22Gentlemen, are you using the following rule: 'This pawn move, called a 'push', is always a single space, and never a capture'? If so, I believe white's move 3 is illegal. Game: Hullabaloo Log: judgmentality-joejoyce-2007-191-720 Joe Joyce wrote on 2007-08-02This is the same question that's coming up in the topics Shatranj Values and ChessboardMath, the values of pieces. How do these things actually relate to one another? Our 'atoms' are wazirs and ferzs, rather chunky for fine gradations. But Hullabaloo, goChess, and a modest number of other games, depend very much on accurate answers. A key question there is: what pieces do we actually figure out next? But here, sure go ahead, add the pieces, if you think they fit. I will ask just how a Lemurian Sliding General moves. Game: Dave's Silly Example Game Log: judgmentality-cvgameroom-2007-172-017 Joe Joyce wrote on 2007-06-23I did not make a legal move. The rules clearly state there are no legal moves. Therefore, I made an illegal move. The specific illegal move made was capture of the king, which, as we all know, is not legal in FIDE. So, either I won, or the move has to be replayed. In either case, you could not have won. You must rescind your claim of victory! ;-)Game: Alice Chess Log: fergus-joejoyce-2007-73-090 Joe Joyce wrote on 2007-04-28Fergus, I had noticed a discrepancy in time but did not realize it was so great. I had planned on emailing you this evening about this, thinking you had some days left but were getting to the end of your time. Given that the available information that all could see was that you did have time left, I would be most willing to have a time adjustment. Truthfully, I would rather lose by playing than win by not playing. My sincere apologies for not contacting you last week. I encourage you to consider an adjustment. JoeGame: Cataclysm Log: judgmentality-mageofmaple-2007-86-746 Joe Joyce wrote on 2007-04-11Hello Greg, Jeremy. Finally got a chance to look over this game. I really like how your 'double-step' first pawn move is working out in this game. It provides a whole new little element of conflict - very nice. It's refreshing to see a game that likes its pawns. It gives an incentive to do some early pawn maneuvering. I wonder if you could use the doublestep rule throughout a game? At any time, one pawn anywhere may move 2 squares, or 2 pawns may move one square each. That small change should have an interesting effect on the course of a game. Might have to restrict it to big games though. If you guys don't mind, I'd like to try to check in with a few more comments as I can. One thing [of many] I'm interested in is the 'run-time' of the game. For no reason that I can articulate, since I've never been able to make this kind of judgement before, I see the game as lasting about 80 turns, +/- 20 turns. I'd expect to see at least half the decently-played games lasting 60-100 turns. And there's no reason to believe I'm right. But I'll bet a slice of pizza and a beer on it.Game: Fortress Chess Log: joejoyce-judgmentality-2007-90-158 Joe Joyce wrote on 2007-04-07Hi, Andy. Actually, the pieces you mention are enhanced warmachines, the combination of dabbabah and wazir, not just enhanced dabbabahs. The warmachine may move as either a dabbabah [D] or as a wazir [W]. The enhancements add to its movement abilities. The 1st enhancement is to allow the piece to move as [either or] both D and W, linearly, in either order. This piece I've called the hero. The bent hero is the 2nd enhancement. It moves as [either or] both D and W, in either order, and may change direction between steps. The 3rd is to make the DW a 2-step rider; it moves as either D or W, then as either again, if desired, linearly only. [And 1 step can be D and the other W; they don't have to be the same.] This I called the lightning warmachine. Finally, and 4th, the 2-step DW rider may change directions between steps. This is the flexible knight, so-called because it can make knight and knight-like moves as well as linear ones. These pieces were all named as pieces in different games already posted, and I just used the names from those games. That's a poor idea. Graeme Neatham, in the other game of fort I'm playing, has suggested new names for these pieces, and has given preliminary piece value estimates. I will adopt the names for this variant, and suggest them as generic names for the future. See comments for: http://play.chessvariants.org/pbm/play.php?game=Fortress+Chess&log=joejoyce-cvgameroom-2007-93-286&userid=joejoyceGame: CwDA:FFvsSS Log: joejoyce-sibahi-2006-271-086 Joe Joyce wrote on 2006-10-10Hey, Greg. The king, knights and pawns are all standard FIDE-style pieces, with the king able to castle with the D+W. The 3 non-standard piece-types, those with center-of-piece symbols, are linear pieces that move as either or both of their components. They may all slide 1 and/or jump 2 squares [or jump 2 then slide 1]. Well, that's not strictly accurate. The D+W moves orthogonally 1, 2, or 3 squares. The A+F moves diagonally 1, 2 or 3. The 'queen' [extended jumping general] moves as either of the other two pieces, but cannot move partly as one and partly as the other. So it moves 1, 2, or 3 squares either orthogonally or diagonally. None of the pieces may change directions. At some point I hope to have the center symbols enclosed in a square to differentiate these pieces from Great Shatranj pieces [which only move 1 or 2] and Lemurian Shatranj pieces, which may move up to 3, but which can change directions during the move. [The first 2 pieces, D+W and A+F, are also found in Chieftain Chess.] Abdul wanted to try some of the shatranj leapers in a CWDA setting, so we've been experimenting. Game: CwDA : FF v SS Log: sibahi-joejoyce-2006-268-978 Joe Joyce wrote on 2006-09-27You're right, Abdul; I missed that move. Apparently the only thing white can do in this game is play N -> f3 as the first move, and use the other knight to block the oliphant should it check the king from b4. I do think you need to back down the power of the shooters for an 8x8. Or keep them the same but go to 10x10 facing a Grand Chess setup, maybe. The FIDE pieces have such a tough time in this game that I think it might be a good idea to make the pawns for the shooters strictly 1-step shatranj pawns to give the FIDEs a chance if we stick with this setup.Game: Ultima Log: matthew_montchal-cvgameroom-2006-119-857 Joe Joyce wrote on 2006-05-10Matthew, could you comment a little on the suicide rule? When did it become part of the game? It's not a rule I remember from the mid-late 60's, when I originally learned to play. In fact, I played our games without realizing it could be done (as I merely refreshed myself on the moves and did not read the full rules text). The special leaper rule seems familiar, too: stopping after a capture. Were these rules a feature of the first or second version, or maybe a popular variant back when it first came out? The name I knew was Ultima; I never heard of Baroque until recently. Game: Great Shatranj Test Log: joejoyce-david_64-2005-349-277 Joe Joyce wrote on 2005-12-16Specific pieces and rules for this game: K = king - 1 step any Q = general - 1 step any B = 'elefant' - alfil-fers - slide 1 or jump 2 diagonally only N = knight - jump 1 ortho, then 1 diag outward R = 'dababba' - dabbabah-wazir - slide 1 or jump 2 orthogonally only M = 'minister' - knight-dabbabah-wazir - slide 1 or jump 2 ortho only; after slide 1, may slide 1 diag outward A = 'high priest' - knight-alfil-fers - slide 1 or jump 2 diag only; after slide 1, may slide 1 ortho outward P = pawn - moves 1 ortho forward only; captures 1 diag forward only Promotion rules: A1 - Promotion is on the 8th rank - recommended for Great Shatranj. B1 - Only pawns promote - recommended. C2 - Moderate restriction: pawns promote only to lost pieces, and no more than 1 of each type. Further, if an alfil/elephant is taken, it cannot be put on the 'same color' (same half of the board) as a remaining friendly alfil/elephant; and an augmented knight must be different than a remaining friendly augmented knight - recommended for Great Shatranj. Addendum to C2 - if the player wishes, or no captured piece is available, pawns may promote to general.Game: Shatranj Log: penswift-crazytom-2005-205-115 Joe Joyce wrote on 2005-10-31Quite a game going on here. As the remaining elephant and ferz on each side can guard each other but never threaten the other side's pieces, the maneuvering ought to be quite interesting. Are there spectacular (said tongue-in-cheek, as there appear to be few if any 'spectacular' moves anywhere in shatranj) sacrifices in the future, or will the pieces remain on the board to block pawns? Will the 'bare king' rule come into effect? Can black even the game? Pity the game takes so long to load, I'd love to run through the moves on-screen.Game: Modern Shatranj Log: joejoyce-zcherryz-2005-154-231 Joe Joyce wrote on 2005-10-26Christine, I got it! There is a drop-down menu in the game status line that lets you choose draw! I went through the guide a couple of times and found nothing about draws either. Possibly if the game checked moves and for mate, it would recognize 'draw', but this preset doesn't. For what it's worth, I had to send you the draw move as #49 to get it to register, although there is a way to back up and re-do a move. Maybe next game we'll figure that out. Enjoy!Joe Joyce wrote on 2005-10-13Thanks for the comments, David. Glad you enjoyed the game. I found it very interesting, in the perjorative sense of interesting. :-) I did my best to avoid swapping elephants; as you can see, I needed both. Felt I had the advantage after the general-knight trade, but Christine, you always blocked anything I did, and kept improving your position no matter what I tried. Figured I was dead when you managed to spring your second rook; my whole game plan was to get my rook to your back rank for an 'X-ray' check to get that rook, then I had a won game. After that, I was trying to avoid defeat by pushing the attack and using my pair of elephants for 'fire control'. Talk about dancing elephants... And, Christine, of course I'm paranoid; I live smack dab in the middle of the New York metro area. Everyone here is either paranoid or acts it. Draws are a different matter. I think some games must be inherently drawish, far more so than others; and I suspect MS has some of those characteristics. When I come up with a good way to frame the debate, or at least the question, I'll put it in the general comments section (where it will undoubtedly be ignored ;-)Joe Joyce wrote on 2005-09-28This game has ended in a draw. Clearly the MS general is stronger than the MS elephant or knight; David you were absolutely right. For a great number of turns before the end, the board was in what I consider a classic draw position: the pieces spread evenly over the center of the board, the remaining pawns left on each side facing each other, a few pieces backing them up - enough to prevent a breakthrough by the other side, but not enough to attack and force a breakthrough. This leads me to ask about the frequency of draws. My last 3 shatranj-type games, one historic shatranj and 2 MS games, have all been draws. Is this a coincidence, or is MS, or the game of shatranj in general, prone to draws? I know that high-level chess is very drawish, but if you look at my play, you'll see that is not why I draw. So, either erratic or low-level play also leads to draws, or there is an inherent drawishness to some (types of) games. The more I think about this, the more I think I need to ask these questions in the general comments area, but there is one question I could ask here: 'Could anybody do better with either side in this game than the original moves? Can a winning strategy be demonstrated, just for this game?'Game: Ca Log: lazyking-joejoyce-2005-152-745 Joe Joyce wrote on 2005-07-05It's possible, as the same thing happened in my even quicker loss to Antoine in chinese chess. In that instance, 2 cannon in line delivered the checkmate. I didn't have an effective capture or interposition, nor a king move, but had to resign to 'give' him the win. Waited a week on that one, too.Hate to admit to being such a bad player, but I'm kinda hoping these 2 games are anomalies.Joe Joyce wrote on 2005-06-30It most certainly is, Roberto. The preset doesn't recognize this, though. I was going to wait a few more days, hoping someone could fix that, before I sent 'resign' as my move. I just think he earned a 'mate', not a 'resign'. No difference in the final score, though. Game: Modern Shatranj Log: joejoyce-zcherryz-2005-154-231 Joe Joyce wrote on 2005-06-28Hi, David. Okay, I agree there is a penalty for being vulnerable to check, but there should be since the king can at most be passive-agressive. Where your numbers run up against my 40 years held beliefs is in the relative values of the rook and the general. It doesn't feel right that the distance between knight and general is the same as between general and rook. I might shade the general's value toward 11. Of course, I was originally looking at it as 7, so I'm basically willing to go along with your values. This means I blundered in allowing the knight-general exchange. I wondered about that when I did it, but it neutralized black's one forward piece. How would you rate the pair of MS elephants? I feel 2 elephants and 1 knight are superior to 1 elephant and 2 knights, even though the point totals favor 2N + 1E to 2E + 1N 26 to 25. The E pair can work side-by-side to cover the 4 adjacent squares directly fronting them, where the knights can't. And they retain the jumping ability, so they can't be blocked, either. I'd lean toward EEN = 27 or 28, to NNE = 26. But these are just guesses on my part. What kinds of modern references for solid numbers do we have? And how do we adjust them to the range of variants that even the 2 of us have made? Thanks for the comment and the info. I'm very tempted to ask if I might reference/include your comment with the soon-to-be updated MS page. This is the first glimmering of something that could lead to a strategy or two. Lastly, I'd like to ask what you think the odds of a draw are in both Shatranj and MS? Game: Shatranj Log: joejoyce-rlavieri2003-2005-99-890 Joe Joyce wrote on 2005-04-23David, thanks for the reference. The variants are quite similar, although Peter obviously spent more time on his. Mine was created as I was typing the words in the comment to Roberto. What is the ettiquette for something like this 'modern' shatranj variant? Do I add it as a comment to Gothic Isles Chess (and possibly, Shatranj Kamil), write it up as a stand-alone variant (with references), or is there an actual modest variants section where it would reasonably fit? (One of the current 'comments' asks what happened to the modest variant section, so I assume there at least was one.) Also, I'm surprised that people actually read those lengthy comments between moves, although I can see why people following the tournament would be interested in how Roberto's doing this year. (Still, I'm surprised that Roberto reads the comments.)Game: Great Chess Log: mikenels-joejoyce-2005-66-203 Joe Joyce wrote on 2005-04-21Draw accepted. Hi, Mike. I thought about it for hours. When you said you were thinking about offering a draw last turn, I thought we should exchange at least most of the major pieces, but looking at the position and how we've been playing, I think you're right. We could easily play another 30+ moves without getting anywhere unless someone blunders. I think we should recommend to Fergus that tournaments use the optional pawn first move double step and castling rules. It would not only speed the game up, it might loosen it up. If you could actually get a pawn where you wanted without telegraphing the move and giving your opponent a reply move, you might see more interesting tactics. Thanks for the game. Luck in the rest of the tournament. JoeGame: Fischer Random Chess Log: joejoyce-fergus-2005-66-184 Joe Joyce wrote on 2005-04-10Once you got my a and b pawns, you had a winning game. I didn't see how I could prevent you from queening a pawn and/or hanging onto my c pawn. My hope was my f, g, and h pawns, pinning your king where it wound up, and checkmating with the rook or a queened pawn. I didn't see how I could before you got a queen. You could clearly overpower my c pawn, leaving you with pawns on b and d, effectively unstoppable. Nice game.