Check out Balbo's Chess, our featured variant for October, 2024.


[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ]
[ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ]
[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]

Comments by graeme

Earlier Reverse Order LaterLatest
Fool's Hexagonal Chess. designed to be a close (the closest?) hexagonal equivalent to orthodox chess. (Cells: 96) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
💡📝Graeme Neatham wrote on Sat, Nov 25, 2006 05:54 PM UTC:
The original scoring was 3 for a match and 1 for within 10% of the target - and yes I had mis-scored the Bishops. I have corrected this and changed the scoring to be 3 for a match, 2 for within 10%, and 1 for within 20%.

💡📝Graeme Neatham wrote on Sat, Dec 16, 2006 12:24 AM UTC:
I think that Rule 50 can be a useful guide in designing any hex based equivalent of a square based game. So, yes, Rule 50 could be applied to 'hexagonal equivalents of other chess-type games'

💡📝Graeme Neatham wrote on Sun, Dec 17, 2006 06:02 PM UTC:

It might be quite interesting to design a hexagonal intersection-based equivalent applying Rule 50 - though I think the hexagons would need to be divided into triangles by joining opposite corners, thus giving 6 directions from each intersection.

I must admit that checkers had not been in my thoughts when considering chess-type games and you may be right about the weird outcome. Again though, I think it would be interesting to attempt the design applying Rule 50.


💡📝Graeme Neatham wrote on Tue, Dec 19, 2006 12:12 AM UTC:
Either you mis-scored McCooey's variant or you intended a scale with bigger brackets ...
Thanks for your interest and for taking the time to examine the figures.
I've rechecked the figures and they look OK - though I might still have missed something.
I think the problem might be in the way I've calculated the 10% and 20% ranges, where the percentage amounts were rounded to the next higher integer and then added/subtracted to/from the match-target. I've extended the table to show the ranges.

Sunflower HexChess. Hexagonal Chess in-the-round. (Cells: 120) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
💡📝Graeme Neatham wrote on Sun, Dec 24, 2006 03:15 AM UTC:
This game looks interesting, and the relative piece values make for several unequal yet fair trades. How did you calculate them?

I usually use 3 different methods of assessing piece values and then take an average. Here though I must admit to merely rounding the values calculated by Zillions of Games.


TriMac HexChess ZIP file. Zillions Rule File and Graphics.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
💡📝Graeme Neatham wrote on Mon, Feb 26, 2007 03:24 AM UTC:

Rules file updated to improve play. Thanks to M. Winther whose method of tweaking the piece values was adapted.

Also a new piece-set has been added using images based on graphics by Fergus Duniho.


💡📝Graeme Neatham wrote on Mon, Feb 26, 2007 06:45 AM UTC:

Mats, thanks for the improvement suggestion - I've added the 'move-priorities' directive, updated the version to 2.1, and revised the zip file. Thanks again
--
Graeme


TriMac 3 Friends. Hexagonal Game of 3 Friends. (Cells: 207) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
💡📝Graeme Neatham wrote on Sat, Mar 3, 2007 12:21 AM UTC:

Thanks for the comments. On reflection I think your interpretation of 'forward' is closer to the spirit of XiangQi than mine. You are also right about the ability of the rook to cross the river.

As with pawn-movment I think I may have over-complicated matters and made 'crossing the river' too restrictive. I'll be making modifications to this variant shortly so as to include both the one-way only meaning of 'forward' and a less restrictive river crossing.

-- Graeme

TriMac HexChess ZIP file. Zillions Rule File and Graphics.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
💡📝Graeme Neatham wrote on Sun, Mar 4, 2007 08:23 AM UTC:

Rules file updated to version 3.0.
This now includes the new default Star Palace variant.


Antarctic Chess or Predators and Penguins. Penguins seek safety at the ice-pack's centre. Can the Predators stop them? (Cells: 295) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
💡📝Graeme Neatham wrote on Wed, Mar 14, 2007 12:34 AM UTC:

Thanks for your comment, David. I had my own younger son partly in mind when designing this game. He graduated last year with a degree in Biological Sciences and has always been crazy about Penguins.

I'd be really interested in seeing your playing board in action.

---
Graeme


Échecs De L'Escalier. A double Capablanca-type variant with slightly enhanced Pawns. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Graeme Neatham wrote on Mon, Mar 26, 2007 04:06 PM UTC:
'What the game's name mean in English anyway? '

The literal translation would be staircase chess, but like the phrase on which it is patterned esprit de l'escalier the literal translation does not convey the full meaning of the phrase.

A more apt translation might be 'Should really have been thought of before Chess'

[Subject Thread] [Add Response]
Graeme Neatham wrote on Wed, Apr 4, 2007 01:54 AM UTC:

I've been following the development of Fortress Chess with great interest and eagerly await it being played. It seems to me that this variant is actually going someway to bridging the divide between Chess and Wargaming.
Wargaming rules usually include elements governing missiles, movement, melee, morale and command. Fortress Chess can at a stretch be said to incorporate 4 of these: command through its hierarchy of leader pieces; movement through its short-, mid-, and long-range pieces which can be seen as cognates for (ancient)wargaming's troop types of infantry/cavalry with light/medium/heavy armour; melee through the usual replacement capture; amd morale by the ladder of promotion with pieces getting stronger as they achieve success in battle.
In fact I think Fortress Chess may well mark the start of a new gaming genre - not merely another Big-board CV, but the first example of 'Warfare-Chess'.
I'm looking forward to future developments


Graeme Neatham wrote on Wed, Apr 4, 2007 03:01 PM UTC:

Hi Joe - Warchess is already taken I think! ;O)
What about Chessgaming?
I am wondering how far Chess can be pushed towards Wargaming without losing the essential Chess features you list. The wargaming areas where Fortress seems a bit light are melee and missiles. I'm currently exploring the possibility in my own designs of replacing the chess 'replacement capture' with a Diplomacy like melee phase where captures result from non-random assessment of a pieces attack/support. Such a system would also enable the introduction of missile pieces that can attack/support from a distance (possibly needing a screen as with the Cannon?).
As for the initial set-up I think mimicking a traditional ancient wargame battle array with a line of skirmishers backed by central infantry and cavalry wings might be worth exploring. And maybe a central fortress?
Another, as yet totally undeveloped idea, is the introduction of 'terrain' via offboard multi-cell static pieces dropped prior to the first proper movement phase.
And I just couldn't resist the invite - even though I'm a pretty poor chess player and an even worse ancient wargamer.


Seirawan ChessA game information page
. invented by GM Yasser Seirawan, a conservative drop chess (zrf available).[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Graeme Neatham wrote on Mon, Apr 16, 2007 05:55 AM UTC:

Scrabblization is surely the fate of any game that is deterministic with the players having complete information - given that it is played and studied long enough and widely enough.

If so, and if it is a problem, the only long-term solutions are to either restrict player information or remove the determinism. But is the game we are left with still chess?


Graeme Neatham wrote on Mon, Apr 16, 2007 04:31 PM UTC:

I agree, at least in part. Removing either or both is probably necessary to prevent Scrabblization, but may not be sufficient.

I would guess, though, that their removal would prove sufficient as I suspect the causes of Scrabble's Scrabblization are not to be found in Chess.


Donkey Chess. Grand Chess with Donkeys instead of Knights. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Graeme Neatham wrote on Sun, May 20, 2007 08:58 AM UTC:
...The donkey *is* actually stronger than a knight, and therefore the name is proper, I think...

Sorry for being slightly off-topic, and I may be missing the point entirely (I often do), but I fail to see why the term donkey would be suitable for a piece stronger than a knight. The term carries overtones of stupidity, and the actual animal is surely weaker than a knight's war-horse?

From an ancient warfare standpoint a better name might be Cataphract; or from a modern military standpoint perhaps Tank?


Graeme Neatham wrote on Sun, May 20, 2007 05:14 PM UTC:

I grant you that the donkey may have certain strengths when compared to a horse: sure-footedness; endurance; intelligence; but not swiftness. However, I find it impossible to imagine a donkey being capable of standing, let alone moving, if asked to carry a fully armoured knight weighing 200 pounds or more.

Even the horse was unequal to the task, leading to the breeding of the great horse or destrier for use by knights in battle or tourney.


Fool's Hexagonal Chess. designed to be a close (the closest?) hexagonal equivalent to orthodox chess. (Cells: 96) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
💡📝Graeme Neatham wrote on Mon, May 21, 2007 01:31 AM UTC:
Have you applied 'Rule 50' to any of the shogis or western large-board variants yet?

Not yet. I have, however, applied it to XiangQi. See TriMac HexChess

[Subject Thread] [Add Response]
Graeme Neatham wrote on Tue, May 22, 2007 09:14 AM UTC:

Might I suggest the following system for classifying the size of a variant?

Min CellsMax Cells Size CategoryDescription
190tiny
10191very small
20392small
40793standard
801594large
1603195very large
3206396super large
64012797huge
128025598extra huge
256051199super huge
51201023910enormous
102402047911extra enormous
204804095912super enormous

Where the upper limits are based on the simple formula
(10 x 2(size category)) -1


Graeme Neatham wrote on Tue, May 22, 2007 06:08 PM UTC:
This system can only be applied to 2D square games.

You are quite correct, this formula applies only to 2D-square boards. I have tried to generalize it here


I would argue that an 8x8 in 2D is also a small board, ...

A result of this suggested classifcation is an assignment of an objective size-category or size-index number. The descriptions, on the other hand are subjective. Thus an 8x8-2d-squared-cell board is classified as a category-3 sized board - whether you want to describe category-3 boards as small, standard, or maybe even glè mhòr1 is entirely a matter of persional preference.

1. very big


Honeycomb Chess. This variant uses a board of hex-prism cells and two sets of FIDE pieces. (Cells: 120) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Graeme Neatham wrote on Sat, May 26, 2007 05:54 AM UTC:

I agree - it certainly looks very interesting. I must admit though that it took me some time to understand the bishop moves. I finally resorted to recasting the board using hexes (see here) before realizing that the bishops were moving through the edges of the prisms.


ExCoCo Chess. EXtends and COmbines the COurier variants. (18x12, Cells: 216) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
💡📝Graeme Neatham wrote on Mon, Jun 11, 2007 05:11 AM UTC:

'The only thing I don't like about it is the Elephant. It probably would be better to have the Alibaba instead. (So that the Courier can be a combination of the Guard and the Alibaba as well.)'

Absolutely agree with you, the Elephant had been nagging at me as being slightly out of kilter - extending it to an Alibaba seems so obvious. Thanks, as always, for your comments and insight.

And 'no', the rule is that a Pawn's initial move may be 1,2 or 3 steps, thereafter it is restricted to just the 1 step.


[Subject Thread] [Add Response]
Graeme Neatham wrote on Tue, Jun 12, 2007 11:10 PM UTC:

The Camel+Bishop confluence puts me in mind of the Biblical Wise Men, which leads me to suggest Magi as a possible name for this piece.


Graeme Neatham wrote on Wed, Jun 13, 2007 02:15 AM UTC:

'Mage - Since Magi is plural, it doesn't seem quite appropriate. But I like the name Mage quite a bit.'

My mistake - of course the name should be singular - and I also like Mage a fair bit, certinly preferring it to the other possible singular of Magus. The soft 'g' sounds so much better.


Siam Chess Game. How Many "Mets" Will Finish Off The Naked King Of Siam?[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Graeme Neatham wrote on Sat, Jun 16, 2007 02:57 PM UTC:

Please, please, please try to avoid the use of judgemental terms such as better or inferior. Descriptive terms such as sedate or aggressive are objective and helpful, but to equate sedate with worse, or aggressive with better is purely subjective and unhelpful.


25 comments displayed

Earlier Reverse Order LaterLatest

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.