Comments by Peter Aronson

Thanks for the space, David (my mind, <em>tidy</em>? -- now there's a strange concept!). <p>[I'd have said you had a beautiful mind, but that phrase was already taken. --DH]

This contest is now closed, although non-competing entries will still be accepted. The judges are working on the judging, but still have a lot of e-mail games to go, and so don't yet know when they will be done.

It seems to me that <b>Ruddigore Chess</b> actually seems playable! But I would suggest that the first three turns be declared a Bank Holiday with no capturing required.

Well, the game has been played a fair number of times against the computer and at least once by e-mail vs a human opponent, and it seemed to play fairly well (of course, there might be something wrong with it, after all I <em>lost</em> :)). <hr> A play order of AABB instead of the more usual ABAB for a four-player partnership game transforms it into a limited double-move variant, rather like one whose name I can't recall, where you get to move a piece on the left side of the board and one on the right side each turn. Limited double-move variants tend to be fun and exciting, so I can see the appeal, and spliting the double-move between partners has some piquant aspects, particularly if communications are restricted and reading minds is not at least one of the partner's strengths. I think I may add an AABB variant as to the Chaturanga 4-84's ZRF (still double-dummy, alas). <p> As for bid multiplayer Chess with a dummy . . . Could be done. Should it? :) <hr> Thanks for the kind words, Tony.

A variant has been added where both moves of a side are made in sequence, instead of alternating; a sort of limited double-move version. Thanks to John Lawson for the idea!

It would seem kind of redundent to have you build a discussion group when we already have one. However. There would be some advantages to a home-built discussion board: <ul> <p> <li>It could be integrated with the comment system. What <strong>I</strong> would like to have is a single system where both comments and general discussion are displayed in order of posting. It seems awkward to me to have two different systems with two different user interfaces for one purpose: discussing Chess variants. And I know for a fact there are for both people who use one but not the other.</li> <p> <li>It would be faster (it would hard to be slower!).</li> <p> <li>It wouldn't have all of the stupid advertising the current incarnation of the discussion group has.</li> </ul> <p> But still, it would seem like a lot of work for something which we already have, if not in ideal form.

You know, I can't see any reason (aside from restraint) why stepping pieces couldn't take advantage of chatter even if they can't create it (sort of like a low-power line mixed in with higher-power lines). Then, if a stepper could move to a square containing a rider's line, it could ride away on it! In that case, castling and Pawn-double-step could definitely generate chatter lines (and we'd have to distinguish between capturing and non-capturing chatter lines). Of course, chasing down a King supported by a Bishop could be rather difficult . . . <p> The above would probably result in a fairly crazy game, but it would also come closer to working with different armies. <p> And for the list of possibly unplayable games, I'd like to add <u><a href='../d.betza/chessvar/confu01.html'>Confusion 1b</a> Chatter Chess</u>.

Great idea David -- thanks!

I think I was a little unclear about my idea. A stepping piece would move on a chatter line if one of the squares that it could move to was on that chatter line. Thus, a player with a King on <b>a3</b>, and a Bishop on <b>a1</b>, with the Bishop having a clear move to <b>h8</b> could move the King all the way to <b>h8</b>. Which is why it could be hard to run down the King without disposing of the Bishop first. <p> But in any case, your suggestion to exclude the King and Pawns from this behavior is probably wise, leaving it for various Faerie and CDA pieces in their stepping moves.

This looks like fun! I particularly like that once you overprotect a Pawn by two (easy enough -- just take an unattacked Pawn and give it two supporters), suddenly it captures forward and to the side. <p> I find myself wondering if overprotection is calculated recursively. That is, when determining overprotection, is overprotection taken into account? <p> Consider the following: <blockquote> White Pawns at <b>a3</b>, <b>b4</b> and <b>c3</b>; <p> Black Pawns at <b>a6</b>, <b>b5</b> and <b>c6</b>. </blockquote> Assume white's move. Can the white Pawn on <b>b4</b> capture the black Pawn on <b>b5</b>? If you apply white's Wazir capture first, then it can (since it is overprotected by two, black not having a Wazir capture as it is only overprotected by one), if you apply black's Wazir capture first, it can not (since then the white Pawn will only be overprotected by one). Curious, no?

This is something new in a way, or at least something not often done. It is a game where the two sides, while having the same movement, have different board topologies to deal with in the opening and midgame, and I think it an interesting idea. Now, if there was just some way to determine if it was balanced . . .

Shall we go with Tony Paletta's suggestion, and avoid all temporary powers when calculating overprotection? It does make it simpler, and importantly improves clarity.

The discussion of piece values and the purpose of the variant for <a href='../diffsetup.dir/chigorin.html'>Chigorin Chess</a> reminded me of a conceptually-related idea I had a while ago I called Rook-Level Chess. <p> <h4>Rook-Level Chess</h4> <p> The idea I wanted to explore in Rook-Level Chess is: how would the play of Chess be affected if the Rook, the Knight and the Bishop all had approximately the same value? It seemed to me that threats would be harder at the very least. Anyway, drawing on Ralph Betza's work on the value of Chess pieces I selected stronger Knights and Bishops that retained some of the character of the existing pieces: for Knights I used NW (Knight + Wazir or Marquis), for Bishops I used BD (Bishop + Dabbabah or Bede). These pieces retain the color behavior of the pieces they replace: the Marquis is color-changing, and the Bede is colorbound. <p> I sent this to David Paulowich, and asked him how he thought this would affect exchanges. He replied that we would still prefer a Rook to a Marquis and a Marquis to a Bede, as you could mate with a Rook + King vs King, but not with Marquis + King vs King or Bede + King vs King, and he still though color-switching pieces more valuable than colorbound ones, other things being equal. <h4>Rook-Level Chess II</h4> <p> Given the above comment, I wondered if the powered up Knight and Bishop could retain <i>different</i> characteristics of the base piece? So, for Rook-Level Chess II I replaced the Knight with ND (Knight + Dabbabah or Vicount) and the Bishop with BW (Bishop + Ferz or Dragon-Horse). In this case I retained that the Knight was a strictly leaping piece not attacking adjacent pieces, and I retained that the Bishop was a non-jumping piece. Are these pieces of equal value? And could you mate with Vicount + King vs King? (Dragon-Horse + King vs King is a win.) <h4>Discussion</h4> <p> I've played around with Rook-Level Chess a bit with Zillions for what it is worth, but I strongly suspect it loses somethings that Chess has. If nothing else, weak pieces can be fun since they can harass stronger pieces. <p> Other versions are of course possible. Given that Ralph has settled down to rating the Crooked Bishop (zFF) as equal to a Rook (there being a brief point where he was rating it at 1.5 Rooks), a Crooked Bishop might replace the Bishop nicely. <p> I should eventually add these as modest variants.

It would be nice if a place to click to create a new subject at the top of the comments page. Right now, as far as I can tell, you have to page down until you find an existing thread, and click there.

Here's an amusing possible solution to the problems with this variant: combine it with <a href='../other.dir/alice.html'>Alice Chess</a>. <p> Here's how it might go. You add a second board, like in Alice Chess, except the 2nd board has reversed checkering: a1 is white, not black. When a piece's move would otherwise cause it to move to a square of a different color, it instead lands on the equivalent square of the other board. Thus Knights always switch boards when they move, and Bishops never switch boards. <p> There are a number of ways to handle switching boards: <p> <ul> <li>Alice Chess-style. The move on the board on which the piece starts must be legal as in orthochess, and the square on the other board must be empty.</li> <p> <li>The Plunge. A piece moving to another color may only to move to a square that is empty on their current board, then they plunge through the board to the equivalent square on the other board, capturing any opposing pieces they land on, except for Pawns who may not plunge to occupied squares.</li> <p> <li>The Switch-a-roo. A piece makes a normal orthochess move on the board on which it starts, and then, if the destination square is of a different color than the piece's starting square, it moves to an equivalent position on the other board. If the space on the other board is occupied, then the piece occupying that space is moved to the space just landed on on the board that the moving piece started on. This version actually allows Bishops on the 2nd board.</li> <p> <li>The Last Square. The piece's move is as normal, except that if the piece would land on a color of square different from which it started, the last square of its move is the equivalent space on the other board, and the move does not pass through what would be the final square of its move in orthochess. The last square on the board on which the board-changing piece moved from may be occupied by a friendly or opposing piece -- it doesn't matter as the moving piece does not pass through it. </ul> <p> I don't know which would be best.

Of course, there is the issue that on a larger board, since leapers are weakened, most of these pieces are probably not quite Rook-level anymore. One piece I do want to try in a larger variant someday is the NH (Knight + (3,0) leaper), since the H portion of the move would allow it to move around a 10x10 board slightly faster than a Knight moves around an 8x8 board.

There's an idea for the Bishop's move -- give it a colorbound Wazir's move, so that it can only use it to change boards. Just repeat that term: <i>A colorbound Wazir's move</i>. I love to be able to say that and have it mean something

Hey, David. Somehow my last comment in the 'Rook-Level Chess' thread turned into its own 'Rook-Level' thread (no 'Chess'). Any ideas? <p><i>Hey Peter, I think it's fixed. There was an issue with spaces I think. Time will tell...</i>

Thanks for the end-game! I deliberately left the Queen out of the leveling so as not to make thinks <strong>too</strong> uniform. <p> I wonder if the the <b>Rook-Level Chess I</b> army vs the <b>Rook-Level Chess II</b> army would be a balanced form of Chess with Different Armies? I would think so, but the <b>RLC II</b> army does have a significant 'can mate' advantage. Does it matter?