[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments by MichaelNelson
Rococo. A clear, aggressive Ultima variant on a 10x10 ring board. (10x10, Cells: 100) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]This interperation lead to a logic loop:
<p>
<ol>
<li>The LL can't capture x2 by leaping to x0 because it could have captured by leaping to x1.</li>
<li>The LL can't capture x2 by leaping to x1 because it could have captured by leaping to x0.</li>
<li>If it is illegal to leap to x1, then it is legal to leap to x0.</li>
<li>If it is illegal to leap to x0, then it is legal to leap to x1.</li>
<li>If it is legal to leap to x1, then it is illegal to leap to x0.</li>
<li>If it is legal to leap to x0 , then it is legal to leap to x1.</li>
</ol>
<p>
repeating to infinity.
<p>
The simplest clarification that leads to the most playable rule is to replace the word 'the' with 'an':
<p>
These marked squares on the edge of the board are edge squares, and a move may only end on an edge square if necessary for a capture. Or in other words, a piece may only end up on an edge square by making a capturing move that would not be possible without landing on <b>an</b> edge square. This includes moves that start on edge squares. The Swapper's swap move is considered a capture for purposes of edge squares.
Peter, I think that the freer capturing is really more in line with your rationale for the edge sqaures in the first place: to keep pieces from using the edges to hide from Long Leapers. So how about: A piece may not move to an edge square except to capture a piece which it could not capture by moving to a non-edge square. This applies even if the starting square is an edge square. The Swapper's swap move is a capture for this purpose whether the piece swapped is friendly or hostile, as is a Chameleon's swap with a Swapper whether friendly or hostile.
Peter,<p>
If a piece is on a3, a LL on a6 can capture it by leaping to a2 or a1 and having the choice is quite valuable to the LL--one square may be attacked while the other is safe, one square may set up the next attack while the other doesn't, etc.
<p>
Now let's look at the case at hand: LL on x3 to capture x2 on x1 or x0. The amended rule constrains the LL's choice of captures when it is already very hard for the LL to capture a piece on an edge square--the LL must reach the edge via another capture (either previous or subsequent) <i>of a piece adjacent to the edge</i>. Only the LL (or a Chameleon attempting to capture a LL) is so restricted: A King, Pawn, Advancer, Withdrawer, Swapper, or Chameleon capturing anything other than a LL can capture a piece on an edge square <i>from an interior square</i>.
<p>
So the LL is uniquely constrained in its ability to capture an enemy piece on an edge square by board geometry and the edge rules, and the proposed rule would constrain it yet more.
I feel that this additional constraint is foreign to the original intent of making it harder to hide from LL's on the edge.
The Withdrawer isn't so badly affected as it is restricted in only two of its five possible capture directions when capturing a piece on an edge square, but if the LL is to have free choice, the Withdrawer should for consistency.
Bario. Pieces are undefined until they move. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Perhaps the best rule for checkmate is to do away with the concept and have the goal of the game to be capturing the King.
The Bermuda Chess Angle. Pieces can vanish in a central grid (The Bermuda Chess Angle) depending on dice-determined coordinates. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I really like this game concept: randomness at a managable level. The Bermuda Triangle imagery is rather enjoyable as well. Some rules clarifications: 1. If a Knight leaps another piece on c3 and c3 is the BCAF, then both the Knight and the piece leaped over disappear? 2. If a piece captures another piece on d5 and d5 is the BCAF, the catured piece does not reappear? The rules as a whole seem to me to indicate that the answer is 'yes' to both questions--I'd like to hear the designer's intent.
Dave's Silly Example Game. This is Dave Howe's example of a user-posted game. (2x2, Cells: 4) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]The system works quite well. I was able to recreate a page for Decima with my revisions in about 45 minutes. When it is approved, would it be possible for an editor to append the original Decima comments to it and then remove the original Decima page?
Contest to design a 10-chess variant. Cebrating 10 years of Chess Variant Pages with a contest to design a chess variant.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]For the record, my Decima revisons weere submitted in early March and never posted -- no blame to the editors, they've been overwhelmed. I posted them myself yesterday at the first opportunity after the new submisssion system became available.
Odin's Rune Chess. A game inspired by Carl Jung's concept of synchronicity, runes, and Nordic Mythology. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Confiming that I did indeed submit the Odin's Rune ZRF a couple of months ago and its receipt was acknowleged.
Pocket Mutation Chess. Take one of your pieces off the board, maybe change it, keep it in reserve, and drop it on the board later. (8x8, Cells: 64) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]The last comment was mine, I forget to put in my user id.
Carnival of the Animals. A nearly-FIDE variant with Eurofighter Pawns (first implementation on an 8x8 board) dice (two aside for preference) which mutate. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]A fine design. The strong Pawns and the random variablity of the Knights will produced a a slashing, highly tactical game. Piece values will be skewed--it will virtually always pay to trade Bishop for Knight, not infrequently Rook for Knight will work. A variant worth looking at would be to treat a 5 as 0--this eliminates some of the longest leapers and brings the Wazir and Dababbah-type leapers into the game. A note on dice probabilites: The chance of rolling exactly one 6 on a pair of dice is 10/36 or 5/18, not the 1/18 chance cited on the page.
Rules of Chess: Check, Mate, and Stalemate. Answers to frequently asked questions.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]The position is illegal--there can never be a Pawn on A1.
Extra Move Chess. Double-move variant based on limitations of Zillions of Games. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Sometimes the limitations of our tools are helpful--here by designing to the limitations of Zillions, Fegus has produced a superb double-move game: quite possiblly the best of the genre. Highly playable and the effective power of the armies is meaningfully higher than orthochess but significantly lower than other double move variants. A sharper, bloodier and more tactical game than orthochess--but still has room for strategic play.
The grandmaster strategy is blameless--it is legitimate to sacrifice a possible win to enhance your chances of success in the event. But it doesn't
feel legitimate.
The problem is in a scoring system the rates two draws as good as a win and possibly the tiebreaker method. The conditions of the contest create incentives to play for draws.
Other games have done worse--I can cite examples in bridge, football, and hockey where the conditions of contest created incentives to lose certain matches.
But then this can happen in Chess in any kind of elimination event. Say I'm assured of qualifying for the next round and in my final game of this round I'm playing A who is 1/2 point ahead of B for the last spot. Now let's say that based on past experience, I just can't beat B. It is to my advantage to dump my game to A to make sure B does not qualify.
Showdown Chess. No draws permitted. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]For a drawless chess, amend FIDE rules as follows: 1. Stalemate is a loss for the stalemated player. 2. Triple repetion is a loss for the repeating player. 3. If fifty moves by both sides have elapsed since the last capture or Pawn move, the player who made the last capture or Pawn move may claim a win.
Chess with Different Armies. Betza's classic variant where white and black play with different sets of pieces. (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Yes. The name Half-Duck comes from Ralph's 'funny notation' for the piece: HFD. The H and D components are leapers like the Knight--they can leap over pieces of either side or empty sqaures and any combination of these. All of this is 100% clear form Ralph's original CWDA pages.
Fugue. Based on Ultima and Rococo this game has pieces that capture in unusual ways. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]The apparent ambiguity in the Roccoco rules for the Long Leaper were carried over into the rules for Fugue. Since the Fugue Long Leaper cannot make multiple captures, there is no need for the phrase 'jump over adjacent pieces' and I hereby remove it from the rules. (Could an editor make this change as soon as convenient?) In Fugue, a capture such as +--+--+--+--+--+ |LL| |p |p | x| +--+--+--+--+--+ is illegal as a multiple capture in any case, regardless of the ambiguous 'adjacent pieces', while +--+--+--+--+--+ |LL|p | | | x| +--+--+--+--+--+ is legal as in ultima and Rococco.
Transmitter Chess. Drone pieces have no movement until activated by one of three friendly Transmitters. (9x9, Cells: 81) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]A very worthy effort. The game concept seems to allow a great strategic and tactical depth. Threats to transmitters on offense and defense will be key.
Separate Realms. Pieces capture like normal FIDE pieces, but have limited moves that only take them to part of the board when not capturing. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]David, The SR Murray Lions seems to be a capital addition to the SR army and would make for a nice variant. I don't care for pushing the pawn line forward. I invented it solely, Peter didn't collaborate on this--and I despise this variant: it ruins the peculiar flavor of Separate Realms. I'd prefer to try it on an 8x10 board, or position the Lions as you suggest and only move the Pawns on the Lion's squares forward. Clearly K L vs K is a win in most cases in separate realms: K vs K is decisive if the Kings are on the same color--the King able to gain the oppositon can force statemate. So if the Kings are on the same color, the Lion stays out of it if you have the oppositon and wastes a move if the enemy has the opposition, thus giving the oppositon back to you. If the Kings are on opposite colors and the Lion is on the same color as the enemy King, forcing a win should be no trouble. If the Lion is on the same color as the friendly King, it should be quite possible to set up a position where the Lion is moved adjacent to the enemy King which is forced to make a losing realm-switching capture. It would take extensive analysis to demonstrate a forced win in all cases, but the win percentage is certain to be very high. The only non-trivial K X vs King ending with the standard SR pieces which is draw is K B vs K with the K B on the opposite color from the enemy King.
My son Joshua (6 days short of his sixth birthday) is learing to play Chess. He knows the moves including castling but not e.p. and doesn't fully grasp checkmate and stalemate yet.
He knows about Chess variants in a very vague way--that it is possible to play Chess with alternate pieces/rules, but he has never played a variant.
Yesterday Josh and I were playing Chess and he got taken by the Muse (or temporary insanity) and started inventing a variant! He reinvented the Chinese Cannon and its diagonal counterpart as well as the hook move, and used these moves to strenghten the Rooks, Bishops, and the Queen. He also created an augemted Knight and some very powerful pawns.
He also made some design decisions without prompting from Daddy. He decided an unlimited hook move was too strong, so it will be limited to a single square. He also decided that strengthening the other pieces required a stonger King and came up with the idea the the King could move KNAD and could leap over check. He also suggested that stronger pieces might make a better game if placed on a larger board.
It was most fascinating to observe Josh's though processes.
The game seems playable. While I don't expect it to have the acclaim of Demian Freeling's Congo, Joshua is nearly two years younger that Demian was.
I will be creating the ZRF and webpage over the next few days.
The idea of Josh getting a hold of rifle cature is pretty scary (though fascinating). I have made some small changes to get a playable game--I explaind my reasoning to Josh and he seemed to get it--saying 'OK, Daddy, I think that's a good idea.' Originally Josh allowed the cannon moves without restriction: the piece leaped over could belong to either side and the move could be capturing or non capturing. This in combination with the hook move is much too powerful--White's Queen jumps over its pawn line and checks, then plays King hunt until mate. But limiting he line pieces to leaping over a friendly piece only make the game playable. Also, a piece cannot both leap and hook in the same move. So here is a description of Joshua's Chess as it now stands, pending a full web page. Joshua's Chess is played on a 12x12 board with the usual pieces: the armies are on the back ranks and centered. The Pawn moves and captures one or two squres straight forward, diagonally forward, or sideways. These are strong little guys and protect each other well. A pawn reaching the twelfth rank may optionally promote to any piece its owner has lost. If the option is not taken, the Pawn may be later promoted after moving one or two squres sideways on the twelfth rank. No e.p. The Knight has its usual move and in addition can leap 3 squares orthogonally or move a single square orthogonally. This is precisely the move Joshua invented: he understands the Knight's move to be a L shape, two squares othogonally then one at right angles: he generalized this by allowing the one squre move to continue in the original direction or go back the direction it came. The Bishop may move and capture normally. It may also move and capture after leaping diagonally over one friendly piece. A Bishop which did not leap and finished on an empty sqare may optionally move one squre at right angles to its original path--a one square hook move. The Rook is the Bishop's orthogonal counterpart, with the same leaping and hook move options. The Queen has the combined Bishop and Rook moves. This is one scary piece. Though not a powerful as the Queen piece in Betza's Tripunch Chess, it can use the leap move to develop faster. The King can has its usual move, can move as a FIDE Knight, or leap to the second square orthogonally or diagonally. Leaping over check is legal. No castling. The Pawns and Knights allow fairly good defense in the opening and middlegame. In the endgame, K Q vs K and K R vs K are easy: a Rook can mate unassisted on an empty board. King and any two minor pieces should be a win. K P vs K should win in most cases--the Pawn can't be blocked.
Joshua's Chess. Missing description (12x12, Cells: 144) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Roberto, thank you for your comment. I'm putting the finishing touches on a ZRF and it will be up later this weekend. Andy, the restriction was added to prevent check on the opening move, followed by continuing attacks resulting in a White win in 10 moves or so in most cases. The current rule for the Pao/Vao moves strengthens the defense as well as weakening the attack.
Pocket Mutation Chess. Take one of your pieces off the board, maybe change it, keep it in reserve, and drop it on the board later. (8x8, Cells: 64) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I am most honored that Pocket Mutation Chess was selected as the newest Recognized Chess Variant and the voted Recognized Variant of the Month the first time out. Clearly PM is my finest creation but I never imagined it would join such august company in under three years.
Neutral Subject Chess. Most pieces start neutral, and players compete to recruit them. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Let me try restating the rule and Charles can either affirm I am correct, or he might think of yet another way to express the rule if I am wrong. 1. For the purpose of applying the recruitment rules, we pretend that a neutral piece can capture a non-neutral piece. 2. After moving a piece, the player who just moved may recruit any piece which is attacking a piece owned by either White or Black. 3. If rule two applies to multiple pieces, they can all be recruited. 4. Recruitment is applied recursively, so if a neutral piece which is not attacking a White or Black piece is doing so after a recruitment, that piece can be recruited also. Charles, is recruitment mandatory or is it legal for a player not to make a recruitment he is entitled to, either by intent or oversight? By the way, I think this is a fine game concept that deserves more exploration--I expect there are many ways to apply it in different game settings.
The Mammoth is a strong piece. Betza's Atomic Theory suggests a 4-atom value, equal to a Cardinal. Its lack of range is compensated by unblockability and excellent coverage of nearby sqaures.
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.