Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
Greg Strong wrote on Sat, Aug 26, 2017 12:37 PM UTC:I don't believe the preset does use the rule changes from the comments. Actually, I'm not sure any games have been played with the new rules.
Maybe a systemic bug for Comments to report: when I clicked on "All Comments" for a Pocket Mutation Chess comment, all I see is a list of 'earlier' comments' that don't include, e.g., the latest ones by Greg and myself. Note if I go to the Pocket Mutation Chess webpage instead, I can see the comments made by Greg and myself.
I corrected the link to show comments in descending order. You were seeing them in ascending order, which started with the earliest comments. You would have found your comments by paging through the comments to the end.
@ Greg:
It's possible my memory failed me regarding viewing that someone once made a move (in a finished game log, apparently with the use of a non-rules enforcing preset) by using one of the inventor's ideas for rule changes regarding piece type classification (& adding in the Superknight). Presumably the existing rules enforcing preset would use the still (officially unaltered!?) original rules for the game.
Anyone who wishes to use the suggested new Superknight etc. rules ought to use the non-rules enforcing preset, and tell their opponent that they wish to play with the suggested new rules before the game with a non-rules enforcing preset is underway (it might even be good to verify with the opponent that the original rules are desired to be used, to err on the side of caution).
Excellent concept. One can quibble about the class certain pieces ought to be in, and the extra basic rules are slightly complex, but cool variant.
My tentative estimates for the piece values of this variant are: Class 1: P=1; Class 2: N=3.5, B=3.5; Class 3: R=5.5, NN=5.75, SB=6; Class 4: C=7.5, SR=8; Class 5: Q=10, M=10, SC=10, CC=10.25; Class 6: MM=12.25, SM=12.5, SCC=12.75; Class 7: A=14.5, SMM=14.75; Class 8: AA=16.75. Note that I tend to agree with various world class chess players who historically gave the fighting value of K=4 for on an 8x8 board. I also tend to agree with chess authorities who in the past valued a B microscopically better than a N on average, so perhaps a better value for a N (or the N component portion of any of the appropriate compound pieces listed above) might be, say, 3.49, to reflect this belief, though I prefer not to use ugly fractions when thinking of most piece exchange value calculations that might arise.
11.November.07 here, exactly ten years ago, I rated Pocket Mutation having played it twice in G. C. It was described as below
poor, worse than poor then, so let's upgrade it to Poor now. This type of CV of too much complexity in implementation is total waste of time. I like the streamlined one-idea concepts like top CV of the nineties decade Hostage Chess. Yet ironic that
Hostage is hardly ever played.
There are some spelling errors in this article.
Under rules the 4th and 5th subsections, "eighth" is wrongly spelled "eight".
One of the very best variant on the site!
Truly beautiful concept, and it appears to work. (I have not had an opportunity to try it myself, yet.)
Reading through the comments, much of the complaints seem to focus on the power of the knightrider's ability to reach the back row and promote. I wonder if anyone has considered that the knightrider move and the promotion rules may not work together perfectly? Changing them would result in a different game, but possibly a better one. Just a thought.
Greg Strong wrote on Fri, Nov 30, 2018 01:42 AM UTC:It is a great game.
To the extent it has a "problem" (which is debatable), the problem isn't knightrider's the ability to reach the back row and promote. It is the ability of black to immediately pocket a knightrider and immediately threaten white with multiple back-row forks. The opening array is well protected in normal chess because chess doesn't have knightriders, but it is very vulnerable to them. White can protect himself but must do so immediately and correctly, which is annoying. That said, I think immediately pocketing a knightrider is a bad move. If white does play it correctly, he's in a stronger position. And a knightrider is worth at least a tiny bit less than a rook whereas the other class 3 piece, the super bishop, is slight stronger than a rook. If you're pocketing a rook into a knightrider in the opening you are basically gambling that your opponent messes up and preparing to take advantage of it. But you are putting yourself at a disadvantage in terms of development if he doesn't.
The only thing I find strange about the game is the fact that castling is disallowed. That just feels odd.
11 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.
I'm wondering if there's a chance that there might be [coming] a second, different, rules enforcing Game Courier preset for this game, with the other [original] rules enforcing preset to be for the games played by the original rules, before the Superknight and other changes, spelled out by the inventor in the comments section, were to be introduced. That's presumably with the rules section for the/a more modern rules enforcing preset showing the latest rules for the various classes of piece types.
This variant looks like a great one (perhaps regardless of the proposed/enacted rule changes as given in the comments section), but I was kind of dismayed that (big) rule changes were made to it after so many games of it had already been played by the original rules - the games making for a lot of study material that now may not be so relavent. I once played over a log of a game of this variant after the proposed rule changes started to take effect, and after apparently being surprised by a consequence of the latest rules, one of the players apparently abandoned the game at once, losing on time.