Comments by graeme
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
Rules file updated to version 3.0.
This now includes the new default Star Palace variant.
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
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'
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
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.
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?
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.
...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?
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.
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
Might I suggest the following system for classifying the size of a variant?
Min Cells | Max Cells | Size Category | Description |
---|---|---|---|
1 | 9 | 0 | tiny |
10 | 19 | 1 | very small |
20 | 39 | 2 | small |
40 | 79 | 3 | standard |
80 | 159 | 4 | large |
160 | 319 | 5 | very large |
320 | 639 | 6 | super large |
640 | 1279 | 7 | huge |
1280 | 2559 | 8 | extra huge |
2560 | 5119 | 9 | super huge |
5120 | 10239 | 10 | enormous |
10240 | 20479 | 11 | extra enormous |
20480 | 40959 | 12 | super enormous |
Where the upper limits are based on the simple formula
(10 x 2(size category)) -1
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
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.
'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.
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.
'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.
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
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.