Comments by graeme
My apologies, I should learn not to post during a sleepless night. I reacted (over-reacted?) to your statement 'Should one really waste energy studying an inferior variant?', without paying due attention to the context.
Shafran's Hexagonal Chess. I G Shafran's Game on the Game Courier.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]While finding the calculation of RPVs a fascinating theoretical challenge, from a practical, playing, perspective the RPV or quantative piece value is only part of the story. In play the qualative value of a piece has also to be considered. This being so it might be said that assigning RPVs to accuracies beyond 0.5 is spurious. It is enough to know that a Rook in FIDE chess is worth 'about 5 pawns'.
2007-2008 Chess Variants Design Contest. Chess variant inventors gather round! We're doing it again! Exact nature of contest to be determined with YOUR help!![All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I'd like to suggest a multiple-board theme, either a set number (2,3,4 etc.) or perhaps just any number more than 1.
I also opt for a voting method of judging, that way no-one need be excluded from entering. I would suggest each entrant should pick 3 games ordered 1st,2nd,3rd - 1st gets 3 points, 2nd 2, 3rd 1.
Additional theme suggestions:
- incomplete knowledge
- no FIDE pieces (including King)
- winning condition other than mate
I also support Abdul-Rahman Sibahi's suggestion of having a confined King (or other Royal piece)
Might I alsso suggest a contest with more than one theme? Say have 3 themes e.g. one Piece based (no FIDE pieces say), another special Criteria/Rule based (restricted King, say), and the third Conceptual (sci-fi/fantasy)
Each contestant could then enter any or all themes with the same or different games and have a vote in each theme entered. The theme winners would then be voted on by all contestants other than the theme winners to decide the overall winner.
I'll try...
Suppose the contest has three themes - call them t1 t2 and t3. Each contestant may enter a game in each theme. This could be a different game for each theme (contestant designs 3 games) or a single game thst meets the conditions of all 3 themes (contestant designs 1 game that is entered into t1 t2 and t3) - or somewhere in between (designs 2 games, one for entry in t1 and t2, the other for t3). Of course a contestant does not have to enter all 3 themes - they may just design 1 game for entry in a single theme (t2 say).
Within each theme those contestants entered in that theme will vote for a theme winner (see my other comment on a suggested voting system). Of course you may NOT vote for your own design.
The theme winners will then participate in a second vote by all the contestants apart from those winning the theme, to determine an overall contest winner
3 more suggestions:
- Simultaneous moves
- Incorporate non-chess gaming element(s) - e.g. dice, cards, quiz questions, gaming chips
- Boundless boards e.g. Circular, Toroidal, Spherical
I take it that, in line with previous n-square design contests, the term square is to be interpreted as meaning cell, and is not meant to exclude, for example, hex, trig or multi-dimension based boards?
Delta88 Chess. Chess on a Trigonal Board. (11x8, Cells: 88) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Joe, the piece values were derived using my PERK method. This is still being developed and I have not checked the calcs thoroughly yet, hence the term guesstimate.
I think the downgrading of the Bishop is due, as you said, to it being colour-bound.
As for the Tower, in comparison with the Queen it suffers on 2 counts:
- It attacks in only 6 directions (Queen attacks in 12)
- It moves more 'slowly', taking 15 steps to cross the board (Both Spire and Bishop take only 7 steps)
Joe, I've had a quick look at my calcs again -
- Q = 11.508
- T = 10.297
Cheers Graeme
2007-2008 Chess Variants Design Contest. Chess variant inventors gather round! We're doing it again! Exact nature of contest to be determined with YOUR help!![All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Jeremy, previous contests seem to have had about a 5-month submission period. As this is a 'pre-contest' contest I would suggest a 3-month period - a deadline of 30-November.
This should give sufficient time for the 'contest' contest details to be decided, which could then have a 5-month submission period running from 01-Dec to 30-April
Jeremy, I've added a section called Child Pages to the side-bar. Hopefully this will help a little with the navigation.
'...:The most successful chess variants were invented by people who did not care if they would become rich or famous with their variant;...'
Sam, much as I would like this CV-Catch-22 to be true, I'm afraid we have no proof that it is. The fact of our present ignorance is no guide to the motives of the inventors of the past. We cannot even be sure that they were not rich and well-known in their day since wealth and fame are at best fickle and fleeting friends.
Cheeers
Graeme
Perhaps the best games aren't invented; maybe they just evolve.
Falcon Hexagonal Chess. The Falcon into the Hexagonal world. (Cells: 121) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Always happy to see a new hex variant. Would it infringe any patents if I produced a zrf for this?
BTW here's a not-quite-so-ugly graphic:
I'd always thought the main idea behind the pawn positioning was to have them start the game equi-distant from a promotion hex.
Now all we need is some entries. I'm happy looking after the cross-referencing and navigation if people just want to add items/pages; or if anyone prefers they can send the info to me for inclusion in the Wiki.
Cheers
Graeme
Chess for Three
. Traditional pieces, three players, on a triangular board.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Hi James, glad you liked the board. Not sure if you had a look at the links under 'child pages', but you might be interested in Features of a trigonal board and Fide pieces for trigonal boards
There's also my trigonal version of FIDE chess Delta88 Chess
Cheers
Graeme
edit: I've used snowflakes before - see Antarctic Chess (for 2 to 7 players)
Step and Circle TrigChess. Trigonal entry for the 45 or 46 cell 2007 design contest. (9x6, Cells: 46) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Abdul-Rahman, I have uploaded the now 2 empty boards to the graphics directory for this page.
Board1
Board2
The piece icons are also there.
The three Gyro's on a given side cover 35 trigs, the missing 11 trigs are those covered by the opponent's central Gyro.
Penturanga. Chaturanga on a board with 46 pentagonal cells. (8x5, Cells: 46) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Thank you all for taking the time to examine and comment on Penturanga.
Charles, I'm not sure exactly what you mean by 'despite the presentation', but I admit it to be somewhat sparse. In order to meet the competition deadline I published the basic description without a supporting Notes section. I hope to add this and publish a zrf shortly.
Also , while I agree with you that that the board is topologically equivalent to the hex-board you describe, this does not mean the pentagons are anything else other than pentagons - the number of surrounding cells is irrelevant as can be seen by the usual square board where each cell is surrounded by 8 others. Topological equivalence also does not lead to equivalence in game-mechanics. In short it is my opinion that Penturanga is indeed truly pentagonal.
Gary, the piece graphics were derived from a Chinese set published on this site. Full accreditation will be given in the Notes.
'Topological equivalence also does not lead to equivalence in game-mechanics.'
Create a piece whose move is defined as:
a series of steps away from the starting cell exiting each cell via a short side.
Such a piece can be moved on the Penturanga board but not on the topologically equivalent hex-board.
'...the fact remains that Penturanga is just a funny-looking hexagonal chess variant.'
I'm afraid that is not a fact, it is, like mine, just an opinion - so may we just agree to differ?
Cheers
Graeme
Your example piece is a red herring.
My example piece may well be called a herring, red or otherwise, but it illustrates that topological equivalence, though necessary, is not sufficient for game equivalence. That having been said, I agree that for the pieces actually used in Penturanga there is game equivalence between the pentagonal and the hexagonal boards.
... but this is a mathematical problem with a definitive answer.
Exactly! A square has 4 sides, a hexagon has 6 sides, a triangle 3 sides, and a pentagon 5 sides. A board with 6-sided cells is termed hexagonal, so surely it is correct to term a board with 5-sided cells pentagonal?
Cheers
Graeme
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.
Again let me ask for the avoidance of judgemental terms. I am happy for variant A to be described as 'more drawish' than variant B, but feel that the jump from such a statement to the judgement 'variant A is inferior to variant B' is unsupported. The most that can be said is that 'variant B is to be preferred to variant A if you dislike drawn games'