Comments by BobGreenwade
Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.
Seahorse: I probably got overly specific on the text description here (a bad habit in my writing). Basically it's an unobstructed Knight. I'll fix that. And, now that I figure it, only two moves (one diagonal and one orthoganal, in either order) should be needed.
Manta: I didn't have an N in the Manta's XBetza. But anyway... if the i isn't needed, should it then be B2cabW?
Sparrow: My error. It should be mQcK. (I don't know why I used o.)
As for in general, I don't think I'd even try to code level-switches in XBetza; I don't think there's even a way to modify that system for it. I was just trying to show the 2D XBetza from pieces that people might be interested in "borrowing" from this variant, since I did the same with so many (expanding most of them to 3D).
I can make that worse for you:
In the huge 5x(12x12) variant that I mentioned, the Sea, Waves and Air are levels 1, 3, and 5. The new levels are Caves at 2, and Land at 4. They're not parallel to the odd-numbered levels, though; they're split down the middle between Left and Right, with their inner edges in line with the other boards' right edges. And when a piece can move from one of the outer boards to one of the inner or vice versa, it does so as if there was no barrier.
If I ever truly build that one, never mind IG or the Java Applet; I might try to make a Zillions file for it, though.
Even so, if I were to try to make a Betza code for something like Aquachess, I'd make it as an "eligibility" marker on the Pieces (something like the type-sensitivity idea already proposed on the Betza page). Those restricted to one level just wouldn't have vertical moves; those with vertical moves that can only go to two levels (which is everyone but the Dragon) would have a restriction marker against Air or Sea.
(And I think you can probably see now why I said I wouldn't even try with it!)
I do notice that XBetza doesn't use a lot of punctuation marks; perhaps something like +, &, %, or ^ could be utilized to indicate a level change. If that sounds like a possibility, I'll make a fuller proposal on the Betza page.
I was not aware of it; and this is basically a different application of the same concept.
At first glance, I thought they were basically the same game, but there are significant differences. For example, Fergus doesn't use the Amazon (or the Nightrider pieces), and allows the King to merge.
I'll put a link to Fusion Chess, including a note of the similarity and differences, in the Notes section.
Or, I could just ditch this and replace it with something else that's been rattling around in my brain for half a century.
Well, I did say only that I might make one. And even that much is mainly because neither IG or the Java Applet are well suited for 3D games (made worse by the "tiered" layout of the big one).
Btw, what is the name of the (2,4) jumper?
It doesn't have a listing here (that I can find), but the Wikipedia article gives it the names Hare, Lancer, or Stag.
For one of my variants, I initially used the Lancer form until it was pointed out to me that it would be colorbound to only one-fourth of the board, so the (2,4) leap isn't much use except in a combination piece like the Wyvern (3,3)(2,4)(1,5) from Beastmaster Chess. (I ended up keeping the Lancer name, but made its move N2cnDH.)
Yeah, no kidding, Bn Em! That's why I (1) said I wouldn't want to try programming the function in, and (2) suggested using punctuation marks.
Thanks for the tip, Joe! I'll stick in a link to your variant as well.
These three plus Paco Shako could almost form the core of a whole new category of variants where pieces can merge.
Speaking just for myself, if there was an article on the (4,2) leaper, I'd probably go with both Hare and Stag.
As for the Antelope (as a (4,3) leaper), the diagram tells me that it's not likely to be much use on a standard-sized board; there's no place it can go where all of its destination squares are available. For something 12x12 and up, though, it can be at least as handy as a Knight in standard chess, and in some cases almost scary.
The Impala, which moves like a Knight or Antelope, could also be a wildcard in a game.
Well, we do have the #Rules:Fusion and #Rules:Fission tags, so it's not too hard to find others with those rules. That's how I found Scheherezade just now, and once this game is live I (or someone) can add them here.
I just had a weird thought: here we have the Zebra, and its relative the Zebrarider. What about a Zebrose? That would make Zebra moves in a circle. It'd be to a 12x12 board what a Rose can do on an 8x8.
Sorry for the intrusion, but "dices" is not a word. The word "dice" is already plural; the singular is "die."
A bit of editing, such as splitting the text into shorter sentences and separate paragraphs, would also be helpful for understanding this.
What I do understand of it seems interesting enough, though, so I'm not ready to give it a Rating.
A table showing the names of what results from merging a given pair would be very helpful, at least for me. I'd make it for you, but I get a little confused when things are left implicit like this.
Re: merging identical pieces, that might have the effect of turning Leapers into Riders, Sliders into Jumpers, etc. For example, 2 Knights become a Nightrider, 2 Bishops become a Reflecting Bishop, a double Hussar could make continued Dababa moves from the diagonal square, a double Spearman could be a Rook/Alfilrider, a double Onager could be a classic Queen. (I'm not sure what to do with 2 Rooks; either the ability the jump one piece, or to make a 90-degree turn in mid-move.) Then you'd have 21 possibilities!
(But don't mind me. I love to make things more complicated than they need to be.)
Well, I'd put a Zebrose into a game if I could come up with a good excuse -- though probably not on a board smaller than 16x16, and definitely not smaller than 12x12.
In case anyone's actually paying attention to this...
I've been trying to insert the Java applet for this game, but for some reason it just doesn't show here. This is the code the page gives me:
<script type="text/javascript" src="/membergraphics/MSinteractive-diagrams/betza.js?nocache=true"></script> <div class="idiagram"> files=8 ranks=8 promoZone=1 promoChoice=QERG graphicsDir=/graphics.dir/alfaeriePNG/ squareSize=50 graphicsType=png symmetry=none pawn:P:ifmnDfmWfceF:pawn:a2,b2,c2,d2,e2,f2,g2,h2,,a7,b7,c7,d7,e7,f7,g7,h7 queen:Q:Q:queen:d1,,d8 eagle:E:FyafsF:bird:a1,h1,,a8,h8 rhino:R:WyafsW:rhino:c1,f1,,c8,f8 gnu:G:NC:gnu:b1,g1,,b8,g8 king:K:KisO2:king:e1,,e8 </div>
(And yes, I do enter it with the editor in HTML mode.)
I see it, and it works; I tried pasting the HTML into HTML mode without switching back to my familiar WYSIWIG (which I'd been doing before), and that worked.
Many thanks for the help, H.G.
It does seem like an interesting game. It sounds like if someone had introduced it to me face-to-face without mentioning any connection with Chess, I might not have recognized it as such -- though here I can see it as a legitimate Variant.
Hopefully you, Ben, or someone else can track it down and post it somewhere.
Yeah, I did finally figure that out. Thanks. :)
I've even managed to try a couple of games. They were fast and brutal, with me on the losing end in 10 turns or fewer; but then, I think a standard chess game would probably come out the same. (I'm very rusty.) I'd love to hear from anyone else choosing to give it a try.
(The computer's opening gambit of choice seems to be releasing the King's Rhino into the Queen's side and letting it wreak havoc. I'm thinking of swapping its position with the Eagle.)
That looks to me like what H.G.'s been describing.
I do think that an article somewhere on variants where the pieces merge and change would be cool.
After having a bit of fun with both Beast Chess and Scheherezade (despite having my butt soundly whipped every time), I'm thinking of trying to cobble together online playing for not only the main version of this, but also the first two Expansions. (I'm not sure I'd want to try it with any of the Cuisinart versions.)
Since there's been no further feedback on this, I've taken out the "This is a work in progress" sentence under Notes.
Let's give this a go, OK?
Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.
Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.
I'm still finding the placement on the Air and Sea levels a bit awkward, with non-Pawn types in the front rows. I'm thinking of either:
I'm most likely to do the #1. #2 makes for (IMO) an overly crowded board, and #3 is unattractive because I wanted to extend the use for three 8x8 boards as found with Strato Chess/Chess3/etc.
Another argument against #3 is that I'm already tinkering with something along those lines, that would also add two pairs of "split" levels (one 12x6 on each side) for Land (between Waves and Air) and Caves (between Sea and Waves), with even more beasts, military types, mages, magical creatures, and even undead, with 144 pieces per side. On the other hand, that's one I'm mainly building as a mental exercise rather than for actual play (though I'd definitely give it a whirl given the opportunity).
There's even option #4: ditch Aquachess altogether, and just build that huge project.