Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

I'm very excited to know that you plan to do more work on Pocket Mutation Chess.

I love Pocket Mutation Chess very much and the 'Excellent' rating I gave it earlier still holds for me. I'm in no way disillusioned. I would really like to see an expanded piece set, rather than alternate piece sets. Joe Joyce believes (and he's obviously quite right) that many short range pieces can compete well against the longer range ones. As evidence, he proffers 'Shatranjian Shooters' CDA and even has a hard time paring down the short range pieces enough to be soft enough to compete against the FIDEs. In other words, short range pieces can compete very effectively against rider pieces. Those who favor short range pieces can enjoy playing against those who favor longer range ones.

I see that you're already committed to a project but I also have talked about wanting to work on a version of Pocket Mutation Chess variant, recently on the chessvariants yahoogroup. This was in response to an email written by Joe Joyce in which he says that Pocket Mutation Chess is his 'favorite chess variant.' Joe there describes it beautifully as a 'fantasy variant' of 'Chess with Changing Armies.'

I propose having more classes, including one or two below (!) pawn (e.g., spacious wazir and lame dabbabas -- of course to be able to put such pieces on the board, you would have to start with one or two very weak ones) and two or three above Amazonrider.

Also, I favor having more pieces in each class, at least five per class. For example: In class 1, there are at least a few more types of pawns you could have, the most obvious ones that come to mind are chinese pawns and berolina pawns.

Thinking it over, I would really like to see nightriders put into Class 4. Then, a nightrider could only come on the board after a Class 3 piece gets to the eighth rank. Being able to pocket your rooks and change them into nightriders immediately really forces your opposing player to protect their bishop five squares (c5, f5 for white, c4, f4 for black).

Likewise, I would shift Cardinalrider into Class 6 (othwerwise queen could immediately turn into cardinalrider), therefore Chancellorrider and Supercardinalrider into Class 7, etc.

There might even be some classes of pieces subtly different enough to fit in between some of the classes you have already.

Obviously this is a variant where the relative values of the pieces matters tremendously. And therein lies much of its appeal because the relative values of pieces is already of paramount importance to any true chess enthusiast.

Michael, email me, please, if you're interested in discussing these things with me more. (I hope you will.)

I agree with Jeremy that nightrider is more valuable than rook in this
game. May be its value is somewhere between rook and cardinal:
* rook - 5 pawns
* nightrider - 6 pawns
* cardinal - 7 pawns.
So, moving all nightrider-combined pieces one class up will probably
improve this game. In any case, this will avoid that most of the game
start with rook->nightrider pocketing as of now. Certainly, some
play-testing is needed to see if really there are situations where you
will prefer nightrider over cardinal.

Other possible alternatives:
1) Add a new piece class between classes 3 and 4 and move nightrider and 
SuperRook there. 
2) Remove nightrider-combined pieces completely to simplify the game and
make it more strategic.

I think this is an excellent game as is, although I am eager to see Mike's new piece sets. [Great to see you back, Mike!] This is also such an excellent game concept that's it's almost impossible to resist speculating about different pieces and piece sets; 'Alternate Pockets' can easily become as varied as Betza's Different Armies, in its own twisted way. And I suspect the 'Mutant Armies' can be at least as difficult to balance as the Different Armies. But I'm sure some of us can have fun trying.

On the nightrider vs rook question, what are the weaknesses of pocketing the opposing rook's pawn after a rook is pocketed and mutated to NN? This threatens RxP, then R-R8 on a following move. The rook is not a bad piece in PM, it pins pieces and projects power along a line very well. The nightrider has a different job, leaping around, forking pieces, and generally making a nuisance of itself. But, a player can do a pretty fair job of covering the back few rows against knight attacks well into midgame, no? If that's so, then the NN 'avantage' is gone from the early game. What's so overwhelming about the NN that it is necessary to change a rook to one?

Just try a game with Jeremy (chose white and DON'T make rook->'nightrider in pocket' move early in the game) and you will see for yourself... Still, I think the game is balanced since white can prevent early forks by black nightrider and have time to pocket nightrider from rook as well. The only problem with this game is a lack of variety in the opening, since the majority of the game starts with pocketing nightrider.

We still have 7 games of Pocket Mutation Chess scheduled in Game Courier Tournament #3. These should answer some questions.

Joe, I don't know where you're going with that. Don't you gain as many tempi by being able to drop the piece where ever you want? Knights are notoriously difficult to move to the place you want them to go and bishops can't change colors unless you drop them. I have enjoyed converting my rooks to nightriders early in this game and certainly it's much faster than the ordinary way of developing rooks (which in this game is not easy regardless because you can't castle). If you were able to promote automatically but give up the drop option, you'd give up as many tempi as you were gaining.

You could play this game Shogi style and make it a more conservative game, only allowing pieces you capture to be returned to the board as different pieces of the same class.

Joe, I read your remark out of context and see you were likely only trying to engage in dialogue and didn't necessarily have an alternate idea in mind. I will now proceed to get into that dialogue myself:

Having read John Smith's other comment here, I think he misapprehends the intent of this game which is to do precisely as he proposes. It's more a matter of conversion (mutation) than promotion since one is supposedly trading in for a piece of equal value. Hence, the name is appropriate and, I think, also likeable. I urge you, John, to reassess the game after playtesting it. I have criticized others for rating games 'poor' without ever trying them. In some cases it's possible to do so, but rarely. I also don't think it's good practice for book reviewers or movie reviewers to rate books or movies without reading / watching them. Of course anything starring (certain actors I don't like) gets a turkey from me and isn't worth seeing, hehe. In this case, not only has John Smith judged a book by its cover, he has misread the cover.

Another angle is that I believe it's somewhat a myth that overpowered pieces have no place on an 8 x 8 board and I believe anyone who enjoys FIDE Chess can also enjoy Tripunch chess (for example), but that is indeed a matter of speculation, and here we are getting into an area of subjective aesthetics where people can legitimately disagree.

I would have to extend my criticism of Crazyhouse to this game, and echo Mr Dukes sentiments.

While I like the concept, I don't think its an actually good game.

My proposed amendment of the drop in rule (pieces are played in with non capture from the spot they were captured) likely brings an improvement here as well.

Non immediate promotion is also unsatisfactory; why not allow pieces to promote immediately on rotationally symmetric opposite squares?

To me these are the most logical ways of importing Shogis mechanics into the more energetic game of FIDE.

I am playtesting the following changes to the Pocket Mutation Chess value classes:

Class 1: Pawn

Class 2: Knight, Bishop

Class 3: Rook, Nightrider

Class 4: SuperRook, SuperBishop*

Class 5: Queen, Chancellor, Cardinal*

Class 6: SuperChancellor, ChancellorRider, SuperCardinal*, CardinalRider*

Class 7: Amazon, SuperChancellorider, SuperCardinalRider*

class 8: AmazonRider

Those pieces marked with * have been move up one class.

I have been motivated by H. G. Muller's research which shows a higher value for the Cardinal than Betza's Atomic Theory would predict--it is essentially equal to a Chancellor or Queen, rather that about halfway between a Chancellor and a Rook as Betza suggested.

I am contemplating adding a SuperKnight (KN, class 4?) and maybe a SuperNightrider (KNN, class 6?). Any thoughts?

Thanks, H. G.

I will try promoting only the Cardinal and related pieces by one class, returning the SuperBishop to class 3, and adding the SuperKnight to class 4. Hopefully, its value is close enough to the SuperRook to be playable--exactness is not required, just as long as it is a fair amount closer in value to the SuperRook than to the Cardinal, Chancellor, or Queen. 

It is an important design goal of mine to have more than one piece in every value class except 1 and 8 (and I wouldn't object to additional pieces in these classes, if any come to mind). Any addition piece suggestions are welcome if there are good numbers available about their values.