[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments by ErezSchatz
Contest to design a chess variant on 44 squares. Our annual N-squares chess variant design competition.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]So far I've not been able to send my votes to either [email protected], or [email protected], nor any other variation on the theme.
Canyon Chess. Small variant with Marshalls and Archbishops and some new rules. (8x8, Cells: 44) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I agree. Although it wasn't one of my favourite games, I wouldn't rush to lable it 'poor'. I think the board and the pieces placement was quite nice, my quirk with it is that there are too much power pieces located on what is a very small and limited board. I agree it is a manner of taste, I use very restricted pieces in my small board designs, but if one likes to play a game of power, kill-or-be-killed, then this variant offers a nice solution. There does seem to be a problem with the image, though.
Contest to design a chess variant on 44 squares. Our annual N-squares chess variant design competition.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Congratulations to the winners. This had been a fun competition. Can you elaborate on who got disqualified? There was a bit of trouble with the mail previously, and could be that there are those who sent their votes but didn't get through.
I'll leave the disqualified issue alone then :) I have to say that although the finalists and the winners very much reflect my votes in the contest, I'm very disappointed that Inside-out chess didn't get more votes and that Hole Chess wasn't named among the winners. I found both games to be quite entertaining in playtesting. I have also played Hole Chess a couple of times on the Game Courier since my original votes and it is still quite enjoyable.
Attendance Chess. 10 piece types that can move to 10 squares each, mostly. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]You may also notice that the game was posted at 05/05, which makes ten, at the year 2005 or 2X5... I also want to clarify the rules of promotion. 'When a pawn reaches the 10th row, it immediately promotes to any piece except the King or the Vampire.' 'only when the player already lost a piece of the type. A player can't have more than 2 pieces of any type, and no more than one Centurion.' Those two rules aren't exclusive, but apply to each other. A Pawn reaching the last row must promote to any piece, as long as that piece has been captured.
It can promote to any other piece, bar the King and the Vampire, as long as the player already lost one piece of that type. Assuming the pawn reaches the last row, and there are still two rooks in the game, but one bishop, no Centurion, no Wizzar and one BattleMech, then the Pawn can promote to _any_ of those pieces.
Oblong Chess 44 
. Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Well, this is my first zrf implementation (Actually, my second, but it was finished before my first, so there). I would really appreciate any comments, ideas, improvements, etc., both to the game and to the script.
AtTENdance Chess . Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]This zrf was the first I wrote, and while it contains all of the element of the game, I believe it misses on one point, and that's promoting, I've found no solid example to follow on this matter, if anyone has any idea on how to properly implement promotion according to the rules of the variant, I'll be much appreciative.
Attendance Chess. 10 piece types that can move to 10 squares each, mostly. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Thanks for your comments, it always helps to know what people who play my games think. The King has only 2 knight moves. This means that it has a potential of 10 squares it can reach (assuming it hadn't used any square move and is located in the middle of an empty board). Once it executed both his knight moves, he has only the usual 8 squares. The Vampire can only move by leaping over exactly one piece (enemy or friendly). It is the diagonal equivalent of the Cannon's capturing move, only that the Vampire cannot capture by displacement, meaning it cannot land on an occupied square. It can capture a piece located in an orthogonally adjacent square. Note that the Vampire doesn't need to move in order to capture (it immediately threatens the four adjacent squares), and it can also capture after making a move, but not vice versa (i.e. it can move, capture, or move and capture, but not capture and move). The Vampire is colour-bound to black, and while very threatening, it becomes 'crippled' quite easily by either blocking its way with 2 pieces, or removing the piece from its way. For other examples of the Vampire, or it's brother piece, feel free to try any of my other variants. When I design a game, I usually try not to create a very steep learning curve, although you can say that none of my variants is 'newbie friendly' and assume a certain degree of familiarity with Chess and Chess Variants. I believe that for that type of player, this variant does not have a high learning curve. It may not be a 'pick up and play' kind of variant, but, to be honest, so are 90% of the variants in this site, including Shataranj, not to mention the far eastern variants which have quite a steep curve (especially Shogi). I personally really like small range pieces, and I find that utilizing them on a large board makes for an interesting opening stages where the players can strategically form their battle ranks begin the actual skirmish. It's something I've always tried to implement with my variants, you can see it in Med Chess, Infantry Chess, and Orthogonal Chess44. I believe more in 'pieces balance' rather than 'complementing'. Meaning there should be an overall balance between the pieces, giving every piece strengths and weaknesses, which in the overall doesn't allow a certain piece to overwhelm the game. For instance, Chess' pieces are complementing, but hardly balanced, while Shataranj's are balanced, but not very complementing. I'm sorry to say that I did miss a spot here regarding this issue, with the Vampire, which should've been an Assassin, this will be fixed in the post tournament version of the game. I think that once you try playing the game for several rounds, you might change your initial opinion, or you'll have more criticism, either way, It'll be my gain :). Thanks again for your info!
You do have a point. I never did claim to be a mathematician, though.
A learning curve is the amount of time and effort one has to invest in order to 'get the grip' of a game. Mind you, we are not talking about mastering it or becoming well adept, just how long until you can play the game without having to screen the rules for every rule and missing attack lines etc. A game with a high learning curve is a difficult game to learn (like Chu-Shogi), while a shallow curve means it's a 'pick up and play' kind of game (Smess comes to mind). Another thing to consider is 'who is your target audience'. Whether you direct your variant to a target audience that is new to chess, or to players who know chess, but are not familiar with variants, or to those who are familiar with both. The expected learning curve changes accordingly.
Halloween Chess. Chess with 5 new, Halloween-themed pieces! (13x13, Cells: 169) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Not to be confused with my own Vampire from AtTENdance Chess and Treeleaders Chess which is an almost, but not entirely, completely different piece.
12 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.