Comments by nelk114
Bn Em wrote on Tue, Mar 29, 2022 10:52 PM UTC in reply to H. G. Muller from 08:19 PM:I've thought of smaller tardises before too, and agree that for most games they'd probably be more practical. As for checkmating difficulty, it seems that Charles was probably relying on the fact that Kings are confined to them, and so presumably the idea (or at least one possible strat) is to get as many offensive forces inside the tardises as possible while the board is still full enough to prevent too much tardis movement (as in the opening setup) and then use that to attack where the king can't escape. And potentially keep the armies spread‐out enough to prevent too much possible movement.
I agree that stopping teleportation whilst in check (after all, The Doctor sticks around until the danger's gone…) looks like a viable option should this indeed be unwinnable in practice
Chess 66. Board based on the 8x8 arrangement - with the difference that 66 fields are now available. (8x8, Cells: 66) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Bn Em wrote on Fri, Apr 15, 2022 11:40 PM UTC in reply to Gerd Degens from 01:37 PM:I use the word 'field' as a synonym for playing field or square. 'Field' has nothing to do with space in German.
The English word ‘space’ is used to refer to individual squares (or other shapes if boards are irregular) of the board. ‘Square’ is also used, as is ‘cell’ (especially in 3D) or ‘hex’ in hexagonal‐cell games. As ‘Feld’ is indeed, as Fergus rightly intuited, used for the same thing in German, it is thus the German word for space in this sense. Conversely, ‘field’ in English is rather unusual as a way of referring to spaces (i.e. squares ⁊c.)
Of course the usual sense of ‘space’ is better translated as ‘Raum’ or the like (hence e.g. Raumschach), but that sense is not what's meant here
This reads better, but it seems to be stating the obvious
My reading of the German suggests that ‘Farbtransfer’ — i.e. ‘Colour Transfer’ — is being use in a slightly more technical sense to refer to a particular kind of event (cf. e.g. ‘Bishop Conversion’ due to Carlos Cetina, which is more specific than simply converting bishops by some arbitrary means); after all, neither ‘Farbtransfer’ nor ‘colour transfer’ is an everyday word or phrase. And since the German also does not mention possibility (*‘dann muss ein Farbtransfer stattfinden können’) I'd probably translate it as your tautological‐looking one, but with ‘Colour Transfer’ capitalised
Could a Bishop move from d1 to e8 along the path d1-c2-d4/4-b5-c6-d7-e8?
Assuming ‘d4’ is a typo for ‘a4’, then my reading of the rules agrees that it could indeed take this path, or instead a path d1–e2–f3–g4–5–g6–f7–e8.
The position on the Switches must be clear. Either field 4 or field a4 [but not both; analogously for 5/h5] must be occupied
In other words, a piece moving onto the switch must choose on the turn that it gets there which squares it can move off onto? And so e.g. a rook can checkmate a king on h8 from h1, h2, h3, or h4, but not h5 or 5?
Bn Em wrote on Sat, Apr 16, 2022 10:44 AM UTC in reply to Gerd Degens from 09:16 AM:That's not according to the rules. Correct is: a rook can checkmate a king on h1 from h8, h7, h6, but not from h5 or 5.
Of course. I think I accidentally started on the wrong side of the board and then applied half a correction (it was late last night). But in any case that still answers my question, Thanks
Bn Em wrote on Mon, Apr 18, 2022 10:02 PM UTC in reply to Fergus Duniho from 09:28 PM:a Knight on one of these spaces could not move as though it were on the other space. However, that looks like what the Knight is doing in your example
That much is clarified in the accompanying text. All three of e4, f6, and g7 can be reached by an orthogonal step (taking into account the rule about sideways moves from 5 going directly to g5) followed by a diagonal step.
This holds equally well whether we use the author's preferred definition for the knight move or either of the more common ones H.G. suggested
there are no bugs in the variant and the set of rules is consistent. Complicated, yes, but conclusive.
Afaict, the rules themselves are indeed consistent (and may well lead to an interesting game), but the explanation could be clearer, as shown by the fact that they seem to be unclear in some respect of another to most of the readers here.
Also I second H.G.'s request for clarification on the matter of knights moving through/over closed switches
Bn Em wrote on Tue, Apr 19, 2022 01:52 PM UTC in reply to Fergus Duniho from 01:02 PM:a series of moves in the generic rule-blind style of notation I used earlier
The move sequences given by Gerd in his comment are B d1–4; B 4–b5 and B d1–5; B 5–g6. He also notes that B d1–h5 is not legal, but B d1–a4 is.
How come the Bishop goes from 5 to g6?
The top corners and the top and left sides are shared between h5 and 5, but the bottom side and corners are different. So 5 behaves as h5 from above (and cannot be occupied at the same time as it), and so is diagonally adjacent to g6.
When the Bishop goes from 5 to g6, is it affected if another piece stands on h5?
5 and h5 cannot be occupied simultaneously, so this situation does not arise. But since both are diagonally adjacent (by the same corner) to g6, it would presumably be fine if they could.
Bn Em wrote on Tue, Apr 19, 2022 09:23 PM UTC in reply to Gerd Degens from 06:39 PM:A rook/queen on the rank 4 can only occupy square a4 and not square 4. This applies to the switch h5/5 vice versa.
That's interesting; given that a rook is allowed to move sideways from 4 onto b4 and beyond, that means that a rook on 4 can threaten a rook on b4 without being attacked back. Is this intentional?
The squares 4 and 5 do not have a uniform color. The squares are each composed of both colors.
Strictly speaking, the colours on the squares are a representational convention and bear no real influence on the game; ‘a bishop can change colour’ is equivalent to saying a bishop can reach the whole board, or in other words all squares are effectively the same colour. But that's a minor quibble
En Bw
I assume you mean me? That's one correct letter out of four, with two more misplaced ;)
I don't think that the moves to a5 and b5 are legal since they are on the same line.
That's one of the few things which changes depending on the knight‐move definition; the definition you've chosen would indeed exclude both destinations, as a queen can reach both of those squares; but the more usual definitions H.G. first brought up (either two othrogonal steps in one direction and one at right angles, or (my preferred expression) one orthogonal and one diagonally outwards — in either order (or not…?) and for some suitable definition of ‘outwards’) would probably allow both moves. Equally the question of whether N h4–g6 is legal, and probably other similar moves, is implicated there. There may be some way of defining the knight move to include only a subset of the moves in question, but that's unltimately for Gerd to decide if he wants to look for (or someone else to contribute if they come up w/ sth).
Bn Em wrote on Wed, Apr 20, 2022 03:10 PM UTC in reply to Gerd Degens from 07:02 AM:It is probably appropriate to add that the switch can be operated not only from 'below' but also from the side.
Seeing as it can also be operated from ‘above’ too, if not already occupied (i.e. from my understanding, B a4–c2; R a6–4 is legal), I would agree that'd make sense.
- N a4-c3 ---> N a4-c2
- N f5-c4 ---> N f5-d4
?? Are those corrections? Aren't those diagonal moves, the way you've assigned file labels? of two and one steps respectively?
Bn Em wrote on Thu, Apr 21, 2022 07:38 PM UTC in reply to Gerd Degens from 07:12 PM:As I understand it, Fergus has decided to program a variant based on yours, and given it a different name to signal that it's not the same game. As a game in itself yours remains intact (and probably eventually publishable too if and when the Editorship approves), just more difficult to program given the primitives that Game Courier provides.
This game differs from yours only in that both a4 and 4, or both 5 and h5, can be occupied/passed through simultaneously. As such those spaces connect to the rest of the board in the same way they do already, they just stop being a ‘switch’ in the railway sense (aka a ‘set of points’ in my native British English, or German ‘Weiche’ as used in your original German page) and become just an unusual topological/geometrical feature of the board.
I'll admit I find it a little odd that such conditionally untraversible squares should be so difficult to implement (couldn't it be done with uncapturable dummy pieces that appear and disappear as the other square is occupied and vacated?), but I'm not a programmer and I've never had a go at writing GAME Code, so…
Very Heavy Chess. A lot of firepower with all compounds of classical chess pieces.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Bn Em wrote on Sat, May 7, 2022 04:15 PM UTC:If we're talking prior usage, it's worth mentioning that Valkyrie has at least three distinct usages already: A queen that can also relocate friendly pieces, Bishop capturing as Queen, and a 3D‐specific piece moving as Rook or jumping two steps on either kind of diagonal. Conversely Heroine (albeit perhaps due to potential Drug associations) is afaict only used by Gilman for a Hex‐prism‐specific compound
Fwiw, Gilman also uses Hero on that last page, and there's also a Hero in Hero Chess. Surprisingly, Gilman seems to lack names for the two pieces under discussion (Knight+Chatelaine/Primate, to use his terminology) though. I suppose one could suggest Catholicos for BWN, as a rank above cardinal that starts with Ca‐ (for the usual extrapolations: Zetholicos ⁊c), but besides the long and awkward Archchancellor (note the double ⟨ch⟩) idk what he'd've used for the RFN
Pythia seems to be unused (understandably, given its relative obscurity); arguably it falls afoul of Fergus' objection to multiple ‘popesses’, as there was only one Pythia at a time, but as Jean‐Louis notes, if we can have two Sissas…
Imo Popess feels a bit awkward as a word, and I share Jean‐Louis' reservations re unnecessary loanwords; Pythia, Valkyrie, Heroine, and Baroness all sound fine to me
Manticore. 
Moves one space orthogonally, then slides outward as a Bishop.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]📝Bn Em wrote on Sat, May 7, 2022 04:18 PM UTC in reply to Jean-Louis Cazaux from Fri May 6 05:55 AM:Perhaps that's where Daniil Frolov got it from?
I've found a few other uses since writing this page (including one in JWB's Meta‐Chess) but haven't yet decided to update it; perhaps some time soon
Falcon Chess. Game on an 8x10 board with a new piece: The Falcon. (10x8, Cells: 80) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Bn Em wrote on Thu, May 12, 2022 11:07 PM UTC in reply to dead dead from 09:56 PM:Which of the two possible stepping Fortnights do you mean?
- The one taking one each of wazir, ferz, and viceroy steps? Given that Gilman starts from the various bent/crooked pieces which only have two kinds of step, this is probably a bit out of scope (corkscrew pieces with one kind of step aside).
- The one taking three Ferz steps, two in one direction and one at 60° (dual to the hex Shearwater)? That'd match the two‐of‐one‐and‐one‐of‐the‐other pattern of the Falcon, and arguably as a Shearwater extrapolation could be nameworthy (I'd've suggested Fulmar, a family of birds related to shearwaters beginning with the F of fortnight as shearwater begins with the S of sennight, but it's already taken (albeit with unclear etymology) for Zephyr+Lama; perhaps Petrel, the group including the fulmars and still beginning with a labial consonant, would suit it?), but presumably he either didn't consider two diagonal directions different enough without the AltOrth‐ness, or it just didn't occur to him. And there are also Nonstandard Diagonals at small enough angles (35°) for more Falcon‐like pieces there too
For a stepping‐Trison component I'd probably choose the former, but individually both are interesting enough imo. There's still a few bird‐of‐prey names unused I think so if one were keen to name them in Gilmanesque fashion all that'd remain would be finding a game to use them in…
ArchMage Chess. 10x10 30v30 Fantasy Chess. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Bn Em wrote on Fri, May 20, 2022 06:52 PM UTC in reply to H. G. Muller from 06:36 PM:Giving the opponent two moves, knowing that he has those, is too costly, though. In the opening you might get away with it, but in a typical middle-game position the opponent would use those to make a hit-and-run capture.
To be fair, Fergus' solution to that issue is quite elegant imo, and even just restricting two consecutive moves by a single piece alleviates hit‐and‐runs per se. It may be getting away from the intended point of this variant to introduce a whole nother idea but it seems like a usable way of introducing multi‐moves into a mostly‐single‐move game without breaking things too much
Grand Riders Chess. Members-Only Chess with cross over between Cavalier Chess and Shogun Chess and use the normal riders.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.
Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.
Alexander Chess. Members-Only A more battle-like version of chess. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Since this comment is for a page that has not been published yet, you must be signed in to read it.
Skica. 10x10 with Ski Pieces and Camels. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Bn Em wrote on Sat, Oct 8, 2022 12:35 PM UTC:Ski‐ is a nice prefix for general use (though compared to Grant Acedrex's Ski‑manticore, the Tiger Chess astrologer is perhaps less obvious as a ski‐ piece since it arguably jumps over two squares — in the same way the osprey is arguably a ski‑‘2.manticore’, to use Aurelian's term for lack of anything better), but it does make sense imo to have separate words for the simplest ski‐ pieces; Bicycle/‐reme/‐plane are nice enough in that they extrapolate easily for longer initial leaps (tricycle, pentareme, ⁊c., practical utility aside).
Fwiw, I tend to agree with Gilman's conflation of jumping ski‐bishop with Tamerlane's non‐jumping Talia/Vanguard/Scout/Picket (he selects the latter term), on the grounds that they reach the same squares, like leaping and non‐leaping elephants; the leaping is then distinguished by a prefixed word (that said, I would tend to similiarly conflate normal and contra‐gryphons and Renn cavaliers for the same reason, so I suppose that can be taken with a pinch of salt given general tastes here). Fwiw he also has an ‘‐on’ suffix for extending a radial leap into a subsequent slide (such that ski‐bishop/picket ≡ ‘elephon’, ‘trilbon’ ≡ notional ‘tri‐plane’, and things like Sowons (per Long‐Nosed Generals) are possible) — though he doesn't touch oblique‐starting pieces.
As regards atomic names, his ski‐queen ≡ Fagin avoids clashing initials, albeit being a bit of a specific reference; Picket and Pocket (≡ ski‐bishop/‐rook) have no such luck, though Picket is always substitutable as above (and both T and V are relatively uncommon initials for CV pieces) (and also, Bat does in fact have a prior usage, as does Quetzal)
Bn Em wrote on Sun, Oct 9, 2022 05:47 PM UTC in reply to Daniel Zacharias from 02:58 AM:At least for the Knight case I'd tend towards yes, with a qualifier for Leaping and (the small variety of) non‐leaping versions (a mao might be Chinese‐style, or orthogonal‐first, for ex.; the moa diagonal‐first, and their compound the ‘moo’ two‐path (or perhaps, following Gilman, Flexi‐path?)). Again, both elephants/dabbabas and Chinese/Korean Cannons (the latter of which arguably differ yet more fundamentally) are usually referred to this way, and the only naturally‐occurring mao is cognate to the leaping knight
As for the leaping Rook (iirc it exists in Ramayana Chess as the Buddha)… quite possibly too; it's renamed in that game most obviously because all the names are themed, and since none of the pieces are blockable it's as easily just a rule difference as a fundamentally distinct piece. At least Gilman took the same attitude for Dabbabantes and their ilk
The main exception for me is if the two are present in the same game, in which case different atomic names start to make sense (indeed even for pieces that move identically but have different behaviours outside that, e.g. promotion or royalty); and indeed while they might feel quite different to play with, it'd seem odd imo to have an array with both leaping and non‐leaping ski‐bishops, or early‐ and late‐turning manticores. Ultimately it's probably really a matter of not arbitrarily proliferating unrelated names for uncommon pieces with more (imo) similarities than differences
And yeah, M&B took me several reads before I got to the point of more‐or‐less understanding (especially since there's plenty of stuff in there that's more interesting than the reams of names), and the broken diagrams are at best distracting
Bn Em wrote on Sun, Oct 9, 2022 06:07 PM UTC:The obvious remaining reason to favour static images over the interactive diagram is that the latter only works with Javascript enabled. I suppose the obvious(?) way around that would be to also have the design wizard generate a link to a Diagram‐Designer‐ or Scalable‐Diagram‐Editor‐generated (if the latter gets installed?) image and wrap it in <noscript> tags?
P.S. There is something very strange with the title of your posting, which is not equal to the title of the subject thread.
The same is true for the first two comments to be moved to this thread, when viewed through the main comments page (EDIT: and apparently this comment too; the comment editing form has the following warning above it: The ItemID 836609b4fd3c40eb no longer matches any item in the Item table.)
Chess 66. Board based on the 8x8 arrangement - with the difference that 66 fields are now available. (8x8, Cells: 66) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Bn Em wrote on Sat, Nov 12, 2022 04:14 PM UTC in reply to Gerd Degens from 11:32 AM:At the maximum
If we're extrapolating already, why stop there? You could always get the 3rd and 6th ranks involved too, maybe even the 2nd and 7th if you don't mind the pawns starting on switches…
And/or you could have some more switches of the Chess 69 variety along the top and bottom if that's not enough strange topological shenanigans.
Bn Em wrote on Sun, Nov 13, 2022 09:45 PM UTC in reply to Gerd Degens from Sat Nov 12 04:35 PM:You can certainly scrap the entire concept.
I'm not sure which part of my comment you took as scrapping anything; certainly that was not the intent. Merely a minor note that your use of the word ‘maximum’ implied a liimitation I don't see
Mind games should be able to be discussed. Or do you have a different opinion?
I fully agree; if I differed in opinion there would be little reason for me continuing to frequent this forum. Did I imply something else?
At the beginning of the discussions, I was of the opinion that switches work differently when they are operated from below, from the side, or from above. I have abandoned this opinion and changed it in favor of a pragmatic solution, in that a switch must be handled the same regardless of the direction.
From what I remember, the discussion was limited specifically to movement via the side of a switch space: your original description allowed (rook) movement from A4 (using Fergus' notation) along the rank to e.g. b4, but not vice versa, breaking the usual assumption that slider moves are reversible. The ‘pragmatic solution’ you refer to was specifically to allow orthogonal slides from/via b4 to reach either of A4 or a4. It might be noted that disallowing all sideways movement from A4 would have achieved the same effect.
As far as I remember entry from the top of a switch, orthogonally or diagonally, was never controversial in this way, and as Fergus has noted unifying downward entry in the same way as for sideways entry leads to exactly the problem of asymmetry that unifying sideways entry was supposed to avoid.
Bn Em wrote on Tue, Nov 15, 2022 12:45 PM UTC in reply to Gerd Degens from 10:34 AM:But why can't a bishop from d1 move to A4 and what am I still overlooking here?
It can; the discussion was whether a bishop can move from e8 could move onto both of a4 and A4, whereas it ought only to be able to move to A4; from f8 it could instead move to a4 but notA4`.
Should the description consider the following knight moves? Knight on b3, is the move to a5 possible, because on the same diagonal? Or a knight on a3, are the moves to a5 or b5 possible, because on the same line?
That depends on the definition of the Knight move: by the subtractive definition you and Fergus have used, those would be disallowed as a Queen could move to those spaces, as you've noted. Other definitions (such as the traditional ‘one orthogonal step then one step diagonally outward (or vice versa)’) would include those squares.
Which definition you prefer is in this case up to you
Expansion Chess. Get points per each your piece on other half of board to win. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating] Majority Chess. You can move a piece only if it is on a file where you have a majority of pieces. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Bn Em wrote on Thu, Nov 17, 2022 09:06 PM UTC:A potentially interesting idea, though I haven't had the chance to play it
But the first example is misanalysed: Bf3 is not Stalemate, but rather illegal as it equalises the number of pieces on the e file, allowing the black queen to move and give check to white.
The assertion about the e file wrt the f4 pawn is presumably a typo.
Tiger Chess. A large game with fast-moving pieces.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Bn Em wrote on Thu, Nov 24, 2022 11:57 PM UTC in reply to Jean-Louis Cazaux from 10:08 PM:It's ‘outward’ in the same sense that the Shōgi Knight moves ‘forward’; only the most outward of the directions counts.
Arguably could be specified more clearly, but the diagram does imo clarify sufficiently which sense is meant
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.
It took me disappointingly long to figure out how said diagonal moves into/out of the Tardises work, but I think I've got it now: for reference, a bishop starting from
c4could move souteast into the white Tardis (in its starting position as shown in the diagram) and continue along itsa6–f1diagonal; fromd4it could go southeastb6–f2orc6–f3, able in both cases to exit to the main board'sg1; frome4the southeast move takes it eitherd6–f4ore6–f5, exiting ontog2; and moving southeast fromf4it may reachg3via the Tardis'f6or skip that square completely. Ofc from the latter three squares there are southwestward Tardis‐crossing moves too, and likewise from other squares.I see where this comes from, though it seems the emphasised restricion may be unnecessary at least in theory; the path‐splitting rule seems like it could be unambiguously be applied recursively, and from a lore perspective Tardises (well, the TARDIS) have been known to materialise inside each other (or even inside themselves, whether at the same or different points in their own timeline) on the show. The only problematic case would be a Tardis straddling a Tardis' edge (though they've never been seen inside each other's doors either, so…).
It seems the array diagram is missing a rank :(
For what it's worth, I like the idea behind this game a lot, though I haven't had a chance to try it; the unusual connectivity is interesting, the moving palaces a nice addition, and the way of incorporating extra space innovative. And the Tardis is the last entry in Man and Beast, too; a suitably unusual way to finish an epic series of articles.