[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
Well i know pawns really hold a game together, without the pawns things are pretty chaotic and all over the place. Play some short range piece game where pieces cannot attack each other from the start, without pawns, and you will get an idea what pawns do.
Joe Joyce wrote on Tue, Jul 19, 2011 10:51 PM UTC:I did Texas Two-step, which is a short-range chancellor chess variant without pawns played on a 5x9 board. It doesn't last long...
Racing Kings, http://www.chessvariants.org/diffobjective.dir/racing.html, is Pawnless. Betza's Feeble Chess right below has the weakest Rook equal to 0.2 of a Pawn, so weak pieces and Pawns can and do overlap and coincide in ''Pawn'' just being a convenient lower-value piece. Pawnless Ecumenical, http://www.chessvariants.org/large.dir/ecumenical-chess.html, is one of several by Gilman that work. Bruck's nails down the name Pawnless, http://www.chessvariants.org/44.dir/pawnless.html. Each Pawn is different here: http://www.chessvariants.org/diffmove.dir/pawnschess.html. The latter raises the question, is the standard western Pawn the best one possible? Shatranj Pawn is about 1/4 of a Knight. Perfected Modern OrthoPawn is 1/3 of a Knight. The enhancements are the two-step option and stronger promotion opportunity. Sergeant, http://www.chessvariants.org/piececlopedia.dir/sergeant.html, is revisited by Hutnik as Pawns-X-Forward or Eurasian, without Sergeant's move-only diagonal, for where rows number 9 or 11, thus allowing mutual unattacking two(three)-steps and one clear central rank but strengthened Pawn for the larger boards.
Joe Joyce wrote on Wed, Jul 27, 2011 10:17 PM UTC:''Then we eventually come to the problem of the Pawn in 3D. This piece no longer has the entire function that it served in 2D. It is quite difficult to build and maintain effective Pawn structures in 3D. They mainly end as simple speed bumps in the 3D game. So the 3D power of the Pawn needs much more research to create an effective piece. What would be the best extrapolation of the Pawn into the 3D playing field?'' LLSmith http://www.chessvariants.org/index/displaycomment.php?commentid=10612 End of the comment George references as '3D King' recently. The solution to this pawn weakness problem is one I've looked at in a couple games, and I find that if pawns are changed to promotable forward-sideways wazirs, 2 pawns can support each other. The ability for mutual support returns the dynamic to a far more chesslike feel. If you take a pawn, you lose the piece doing the taking. You may take the second pawn for free, but you will lose something to get a pawn. It is not perfect, but it is a simple change, and helps overcome the openness of a higher-dimensional board.
In general Pawn topic, use Philosopher's Chess inspiration to have more
things constituting a move. Philosopher's has list of seven things
constituting a move, http://www.chessvariants.org/40.dir/philosophers.html.
Putting aside Joe's 3-D solution sub-topic for now, do 2-D Pawns get
''cluttered'' ten-wide? In a way recent commenter has a point, that
there are a lot of Pawns to get moving on more-than-eight files. For
'8x10s' like Janus, Falcon and most Carrera/Capablancas such as
Schoolbook, there is the solution to let any two Pawns move one step in any one move. So a move consists automatically on the larger 80 squares one of:
(1) Piece (2) Pawn originating two-step (3) Castle (4) En passant (5) Pawn
one-step, take or move divergence
(6) Two different Pawns like step '5'.
(7) Promotion may vary (8) Specialized moves cv-variable include FC's Guarding the Queen. The new idea is step '6', and it does not make a two-move cv but only two Pawns, not piece and pawn, at option. Player can decide to move one Pawn only. No peculiarity of moving twice the same pawn, or piece, whilst some interesting revealed/disclosed checks can arise; fine-tuning, probably only the move-terminated check-status ought to hold as mattering. There would still be some even the usual number array two-steps, and the implementation causes over-all faster Pawn action to the very end.
One of the tasks of Pawns is to offer an advantage in the potential exchange. Being the lowest of rank, trading one(or more) of these for a power piece can offer a significant advantage in the game. Thus this is usually a weak and numerous piece. An army for the player. Its promotion also can offer a significant material advantage, creating a focus of contention while in play. At what point can a Pawn no longer be considered such. Does freedom of movement negate this title? Does movement beyond a single step? I would advocate that the least powerful(and most numerous) piece of any game might be designated a Pawn, regardless of its particular powers and movement.
Well a rank full of Pawnlike pieces can be disadvantageous in a game dominated by short-range pieces. This is the reason why I gave 3d Minishogi a subvariant with a setup phase. This phase involves reducing the size of each player's front rank. Starting with Black, each player removes one of their Princelings from a file in which the other player also has a Princeling, until only three files have both players' Princelings on it. A Revergent hex Los Alamos with the following array:
would be similarly problematic without some kind of rule such as 'Black's first move cannot be a capturing one'. Even then I suspect that more would need doing to make a decent game of it.
Joe Joyce wrote on Wed, Sep 7, 2011 07:34 PM UTC:There seems to be something of a difference of opinion here, with Christine saying: 'Well i know pawns really hold a game together, without the pawns things are pretty chaotic and all over the place. Play some short range piece game where pieces cannot attack each other from the start, without pawns, and you will get an idea what pawns do.' Charles, on the other hand, sees it this way: 'Well a rank full of Pawnlike pieces can be disadvantageous in a game dominated by short-range pieces...' and goes on to give examples of mini-games where any white pawn move results in a pawn loss for white. By having a 'picket fence' pawn line, this problem is eliminated. Charles, I gotta go with Christine on this one. She wins by virtue of a better example. I have played 'some short range piece game where pieces cannot attack each other from the start, without pawns...' several times - Texas Two-Step. That 'obscure political commentary' illustrates Christine's point very well. Further, while I concede there are Eastern variants that do very well with a picket fence pawn array, their pieces are generally weaker than the Western variants. The use of weaker and shorter-ranged pieces may be a requirement for a good game which uses a picket fence, as stronger pieces would blow through the holes, or even lurk deep in a hole to control a line or two of squares. George proposes we adopt the pawn double step to mean 1 pawn stepping 2 or 2 pawns stepping 1 each. [And here's an odd question - could the opponent capture 1 (or both?) pawn(s) en passant, by moving an appropriately-placed pawn 1 square diagonally forward to occupy the square the pawn(s) moved from? Seems only fair to me. :) ] In a large game like Cataclysm, the 2 pawns stepping 1 is such an excellent idea I'd like to see it expanded. Let any pawn who has not yet moved 2 squares [or to the midline] to move 1 square along with another similar friendly pawn. In games where pawns may move 3, allow 3 1-steps, or a 1 and a 2 step pawn move, up to the midline. That sort of change should alleviate many complaints about slow openings in big games. However, pacing in larger or slower games does not always need to be speeded up. I'm currently playing a game of Short Range Courier Chess on an 8x12 board, and the short range pieces and the slower 1-step shatranj pawns impose a slower pace, but one well-suited to the particulars of the game. In modern Western chess, pawns get a little play in the beginning, but are often relegated to speed-bump status until the end of the game, where they might get a little action again. In a large short-range game, pawns are an essential part of your attack force as well as being strong defensive pieces. This makes proper pawn development more critical. In such games, most of my initial moves are pawn moves, easily 7 of my first 10 moves. [Grin, if you're curious to see how effective this is, you can play a game with me; I've been winning my share.] Even with a large number of leaping pieces, this eventually tends to give me more territory, which can be decisive. Well, this is already overlong, and I've got chores. Enjoy!
What are the general characteristics of a pawn-like piece? I'd nominate these characteristics: 1. Most numerous piece type in the game. 2. Weakest piece type in the game. 3. Short range. 4. Non-retreating. 5. Promotes to something decisive (can force mate). For illustration, consider how several variants stack up: FIDE Chess: pawn satisfies each criterion perfectly. Shatranj: Perfect for 1-4, deficient in criterion 5, as K + Ferz that a pawn promotes to can't force mate (less of a problem with the Shatranj ruleset as stalemate and bare King are wins). my own Pocket Mutation Chess: 1-3 is perfect, 4 is not so much so, as a pawn can retreat via a pocket move, 5 partially not a fit, while the pawn has a promotion path to a decisive piece, it can only only promote directly to a Knight or Bishop, which can't force mate. Betza's For The Birds Chess: 1, 2, 4 and 5 OK but the pawn-like piece has a long range move. my own Wizards' War: nothing remotely resembling a pawn in this game (by design--one of my design objectives was a playable, pawn-less, strong piece game). I submit that all the games are playable Chess Variants (broadly defined) but the better a variant conforms to these criteria, the more 'Chess-like' it is. Try analyzing some other variants with these criteria and let me know what you think of this hypothesis, offering alternative/additional criteria if you wish.
Giving this thread specific example never analysed, Barrier Pawn, http://www.chessvariants.org/large.dir/kristensens.html, is so weak he only fulfulls Michael Nelson's '2' and '3' but is essential to mid-century Kristensen's as blockader. Barrier Pawn can kill no piece or OrthoPawn only the other Barrier Pawn. Weak-value yet great effect even more determining on Kritstensen's than any other piece-type. How can this be? Basically because there very rarely avails the chance to capture him. Just because B.P. is there, each score runs wholly different channels. The unit must have core-value Pawn attribute to cause corral effect since he cannot be captured himself either. He prevents a corridor unto the King be it rank, file or diagonal. It all suggests the key Pawn feature -- taking a chance on generalization to other Pawn-types -- stripped of strengthening, is to ward off and prevent any cv in question being too Mamra-like at that extreme.
11 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.
It's been a while since I asked any dumb questions, so I'm overdue. This means I've got 2 dumb questions: What are pawns? Why are pawns? I think I understand the first why - the pawns are there to hem in your own pieces, so they cannot attack your opponent on the first turn. This becomes glaringly obvious in the higher-dimensional variants, especially 4D [and higher.] Ever wonder why Chesseract is set up in the corners? It's to prevent first turn captures as far as I can see, and can anybody tell me differently? The second purpose of pawns is to defend your pieces from the other side, and that's the one I always thought was the only reason for pawns until I tried designing a 4D game. The very best proof of this is TessChess, Ben Reiniger's 4D variant, which I had the privilege of helping him polish up a bit. The pawns in his game just barely do their first job, preventing your pieces from slaughtering your opponent [and maybe vice versa, maybe not] on turn one. They do not protect your pieces from the opponent's pieces at all. And it's pretty hard to move one very far at all. Even advancing 1 square may require some preparation from previous piece moves - that's right, piece, not pawn moves. Pawns are in some ways a timing mechanism and in some ways a wall to delineate your country. Each time a pawn moves, the state of the game is irreversibly advanced, and the amount of territory behind the pawn wall [aka: friendly territory] expands. They also represent a little bit of luck or randomness, the rare sudden appearance of a new hero, since every once in a while, one gets promoted, but you should have no way of knowing before a game that you will promote a pawn in that game. If you do know, you need to play stronger opponents. Where did pawns come from? There are 2 'styles' of chess games, one with a full rank of pawns, and one with a 'picket fence' rank of pawns. Why? Why are there [at least] 2 pawn traditions? Does this mean that proto-chess merged with 2 similar but different games [race games, possibly - anyway most seem to think pawns were pieces in a racing game, where pieces were originally sacred figures.] Or is it really as simple as one evolved into the other, somewhere/when?