Comments by Larry Smith

Berse appears to be a form of bersim, which is a flower.

A very nice game.  Interesting playing field, pieces and rules.

As to the idea of using other shapes to denote cells in non-cubic fields
within a 2D medium, a simpler form might be to have points with colorized
radiating lines noting the various directions.  Like Chinese Chess, pieces
would move from point to point.

Although this might also be confusing as lines would criss-cross one
another without actually intersecting.  But this is where colorization
would come in handy.

But I don't think it is necessary to change the graphics for this
particular game as it is quite understandable in its current form.

The following is a form of time travel chess worked out by Jens Meder and
myself.  It involves the use of Checkers as markers.

All pieces can be warped either from the future or into the future.

A piece is time-warped from the future by 'cloning' a piece located upon
the field.  A duplicate piece preforms a legal move from the location of
the 'original' piece.  The 'original' piece is denoted with a number
of red checkers, up to six.  The player is allowed to move either
'duplicate' and 'original' on subsequent turns.  At the end of each
turn, the player removes one of the checkers from the 'original' piece. 
The 'original' piece is removed from the game with the last of the
checkers.  (If there is no extra piece available for the 'duplicate', a
player can merely mark one of the checkers with a sticker noting the value
of the 'original' piece and use the current piece for the
'duplicate'.)

A player time-warps a piece into the future by placing a number of black
tokens, up to six, with it.  Such a piece is considered to have
'dis-appeared' and not allowed to be move from its cell until it
'reappears' in the future.  Other pieces are allowed to move through and
upon a cell occupied by such a piece.  At the end of each turn, the player
removes one of the checkers from this piece.  When all the checkers are
gone, it has 're-appeared'.  Any other piece, regardless of owner, which
is located on the cell of a 're-appearing' piece is considered captured
and removed from the game.  The  're-appearance' of a piece is automatic
and not considered a turn in itself.

Each player is only allowed one warp, either to the future or from the
future, to exist during a turn.  Since the checkers are not removed until
the end of the turn, a player must wait to the next before creating a new
warp.  A player is not allowed to add checkers to a warp.

The game is won by check-mating the opponent King or capture of an
'original' piece of a time-warp from the future.  The latter condition
of this rule is due to a paradox, since a captured 'original' piece
would then be unable to warp back in time.  And yes, the King can
time-warp into the future to avoid a current check.  And the King can
time-warp from the future, its 'duplicate' would be subject to the
check-mate portion of the rule while the 'original' is now subject to
the capture portion of the rule.

Robert,

Roberto and I have been in e-mail discussion about the implementation of
this game.  He has volunteered for the graphics.

I have worked up a number of ideas on the handling of the code.  There
being several ways to approach each of the various conditions in this
game.  

We should establish a discussion group specific for individuals interested
in participating in this project.  It would need to be a location which
allows the posting of data files, so participants can easily exchange the
lengthy examples of coding which will become part of this implementation.

I like it.  I like it.  I like it.

The opponent Mato to’a are unable to keep up with the stone-throwing
Ariki.  So the field can become littered with its deposits.

In addition to the goal of a cell, the win by immobilizing the opponent
Moais is a nice condition.

Nice work.  The rules are not complex but the game-play will definitely
challenge.

A nice simple formula for time control of the tournament:

(maximum time length of tournament)/(maximum number of moves allowed in
the particular game)=(maximum alloted response time)

(number of moves allowed)=(total number of full turns allowed)*(number of
players in the particular game)

If a player fails to respond within the alloted time, they would
automatically forfeit the game regardless of their current position or
material gain.

You've got to be cruel.

Since this is a game which involves the goal of a stalemate, the
possibility of a cluttered field is actually desired.  A player would be
wise not to impede their own progress with stone-throwing.

Capturing the opponent's Ariki will be an in-game strategy.  With three
of them, this will be a tough objective to capture them all.  But the
potential is there.  Impeding this piece's moves and stone throws would be a good tactic.

And once a player loses all their Ariki, they might not have the ability
to make their cell goal but they still might capture the opponent Moais. 
Or even to draw the game.

The Mato to’a can only be fully impeded by their own stones or enemy
pieces(not enemy stones).  They cannot be captured.  Send them into the fray.

Remember that the Moais can move swiftly across the field, it is merely
dependent on the connectivity of its stones.

The fact that a computer program has difficulty playing this game does not
negate its potential.  In fact, it increases it.  Once a game has been
fully quantified, although it may have a high degree of difficulty, it
becomes trivial.

For now, this game might best be played between two humans.  Once certain
patterns of play can be discovered, a good computer program might be
worked out.

Very clever.

I wonder if Joseph will be developing designs for other chess variant
pieces.  Please let the answer be 'Yes'.

In XiangQi, it is suppose to be illegal to expose your King to capture. 
But these students might merely be playing these games through to capture
in order to learn its nuances.  That way they can learn to visualize all
these potential lines of attack on the King and realize a 'checkmate'
position.

Then again, it might be a local form of play. ;-)

Instead of the win-conditon being the presence of the King within a
particular zone, make the win-conditon also the absence of the King on the
rest of the field.

This is your current condition:

  (win-condition (White Black) (absolute-config King (promotion-zone)))

Make it:

(win-condition (White Black) 
(and
(absolute-config King (promotion-zone))
(absolute-config (not King) (not-promotion-zone))
)
)

You will have to define the not-promotion-zone, which will be all the
cells that are not part of the normal promotion-zone.

The Zillions engine will now have the 'urge' to move that King into the
promotion-zone.

Replacement pieces for Pawn promotion are obtained from those which were
captured.  Rooks are often turned up-side down to represent extra Queens. 
If none are available, use a Checker under the promoted Pawn to represent
the new Queen.

Pawn promotion may also include other pieces besides the Queen.

I'm sure that the game might be interesting.  But I gave up reading after
the first page.

There is probably a more concise way to impart the directions for this
game.  The instructions, although colorful, were a little convoluted.  The
graphics, although attractive, contain excessive amount of material which
did not add to the move description but actually confused.

I will download each of these pages and peruse them at my convenience. 
But I anticipate a rather long slog through these instructions.

The King moves two cells as a first move only if it performs a 'castling'
move.  Other than that particular condition, it always moves one cell.

So, don't move your Hero on the first move. ;-)

The position assures that the Hero will not come into play without at
least a few development moves.  Of course, a player could trade Heroes.
And leave their King file open.

It is a nice game, including the variants.

Another consideration would be the advantage in the exchange.  No matter
the number of the various pieces, a game might have a significant
difference between the weakest and the strongest.  This allows for the
potential of advantage in the game, even if the exchanges are equal.

Of course this value would be quite difficult to quantify and would vary
from one game to the next, being dependent upon field and goal.

A hoax?  I'd like to hear Leno's comment on that.  If this is truly the
case, it is one of the most intricate.

And if something is not comprehended how can it ever be played?  How do
either of the players know if an action is legal.  They could resort to
flicking pieces across the table at each other.

I can completely understand the source of this topic.  I know that there
has been several requests that the Archer in Field Chess be re-named
because it doesn't have the 'shoot'.  I am one of the guilty.

The naming of playing pieces is the privilege of the developer.  Games
with themes have often given names to pieces which might otherwise have
previous designations.  And new pieces are sometimes given the title of
pieces which are barely similar.

The standardization of piece names is an ardent task.  There are a lot of
published games that would need reconciliation, some of which the authors
are no longer available for such.  In the compilation of a list of piece
descriptions, there might be several different forms.  This means that the
researcher will just have to accept the labor.

There will develop, over time, a common use of certain piece names.  And
these can be tagged as such in the name description.

And whether a particular description of a piece is mentioned will be
totally dependent on the criteria of the list.  What ever this evaluation,
it should be fairly applied.

Well, according to the ZRF non-capturing Pawns promote to other
non-capturing pieces.  This appears very logical.

A very interesting game.  Sort of Alice Chess meets Shogi with boxing
gloves in a knife fight. ;-)