Comments by RichardHutnik

Here is another approach I would suggest for strength of pieces.  How about
we pick 100 and people order them from strongest to weakest?  Work on a
scoring system for position, and then at least get an idea of order of
strength.

Anyone think this might be a sound approach?

This game looks like a chess variant to me.  The object is to either
stalemate your opponent or eliminate one of his classes of pieces from the
board (there are three classes).  Anyone else agree it is a chess variant?

You can learn more about it here:
http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/258704

Preset for this game is up here:
/play/pbm/play.php?game%3DMillennium+Chess%26settings%3DNC1

Let me give an IAGO spin on this (not meant to be 'my' spin, but it is
mostly mine at this point).  As of this point, a categorization of games
involving capture is that they are broken into two categories, these being
multi-elimination (Checkers) and Royal Elimination (Chess).  Royal
elimination games involve one or more classes of 'Royal' pieces, where
the objective is to eliminate or neutralize a particular class or sets of
classes.  In multi-elimination, the objective is to eliminate all or most
of the pieces.

Based on this spin, the games on the chess variants site should fit into
the Royal Elimination category, unless you talk Axis and Allies Chess. 
And under this criterion, then I see Tzaar being a game that would fit
here.  It is in the extinction chess category, where you get to fuse
pieces together to make them more powerful.

I believe the value of a piece should relate to its mobility first and
foremost.  If one were to end up rating a piece, come up with a value of 1
for the most pathetic potential piece in the game, and then adjust
accordingly.  How about a pawn that starts out on the second space and
only moves backwards one as its move and doesn't capture?  That pawn has
a value of one.  How much more is an Asian chess pawn that moves only one
space forward, and doesn't promote worth in contrast?

To base it on a normal chess pawn is to not provide a full solution for
the variant community.

Let me provide another challenge for people here regarding pawns.  How
much is a pawn that moves only one space forward (not initial 2) but
starts on the third row instead of second worth in contrast to a normal
chess pawn?  How much is it worth alone, and then in a line of pawns that
start on the third row?

In wargames, you have combined units attacking a single unit that is more powerful to eliminate it.  You don't have that, as far as I can tell, with this game.  This makes, in my assessment, a game where pieces are exponentially more powerful than they would be normally. 

I don't see what issue is 'addressed' here at all.  Chess is an abstract strategy game, where combat/capture is deterministic in nature.  This proposal stops making it chess, or chess-like, in my assessment.  It becomes a simple wargame.

If you want to go this route then have it so that pieces move next to others and then can attack multiple against one.  You also need to allow multiple pieces to move.  In other words, make it more wargame-like.

This is on the subject of balancing methodologies for sides so play is
fair.

The entire question of piece values, and the endless discussion with not a
breakthrough, had myself wondering if there was not another angle on these
issues, and wondering what the point is.  I am sure part of it has
something to do with determination of strategy and calculating exchanges
(thanks Joe Joyce for this one), but I consider a more pressing issue has
to do with an issue of both fairness and certain mixes of pieces not
breaking the game.  A breaking situation can be excessive draws, or that a
game is considered optimized down one path, reducing its richness.

So, in light of this, would not another approach here be to ask how
players can be assured of a game that is balanced and not broken, in light
of not knowing the value of the pieces.  The unknown could serve as a
strength actually for playing, as players may not know exactly if a mix is
ideal or not.  Maybe the luck element increases some, but perfect
information should be there.

I believe that by addressing this issue now, we can come up with
methodologies that would enable to handle to the fullness of variant
community, right down to new boards and also mutators.  I believe doing
this also can then lend to a pool of experience that can then be used for
determining actual piece values.

Anyone want to list some suggestions here for balancing mechanisms in
light  of not knowing the values of pieces.

I see several possibilities here (please add more):
1. You do a mechanism like the latest CV Pot Luck.  For a tournament,
players would end up selecting pieces they want to use, boards and so on,
and then vote them out or in.
2. Randomized pool.  Tournament director loads up a pool of pieces of
certain types, and then randomly selects which will go in.
3. Auction mechanism.  Players bid on pieces they put up, to determine if
they get in or not.

I will let others decide further on this.

George, I would like to comment on what you said.  I personally don't believe the issue is quantity, per-se, it is just that there isn't a systematized way to organized the quantity in a meaningful way.  If such a system existed, then you could generate a large number of pieces, and they fit into the large chess variant world.  

I will say, without organization, there is likely far too much content being generated, that isn't going to get used at all.  The lack of a systematized approach, does lead for cases of the Eurasian pawn I entered recently, because it didn't seem to fit anywhere.

Machines beat human beings at things such as speed and power.  I don't see
it as a problem if an AI can beat humans at Ortho-Chess.  What DOES matter
in this area is that Chess doesn't get so optimized in its play that it
leads to excessive amounts of draws, and failure of players to creatively
beat their opponents, limiting the drama.  Also, if a game is feeling
overly played out, it begins to lose the community it is supposed to
serve.  If people raise up the game as some sort of infalliable god, and
refuse to look at how it can better serve, then the game has a problem.

A problem when you propose game rules for literary or 'artistic' reasons, is that the foundation doesn't come from gameplay.

If your idea is to have a unit challenge another unit to a duel, add another game level of play, where the battles can be fought out, and based on skill of players at the mini-game, one unit or another can win.