Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Well round the table talks are always fun!

19. Lady in Waiting. What the Abbot is to the Archbishop and the Castellan is to the Chancellor, the Lady in Waiting is to the Queen: it moves four spaces in any orthogonal or diagonal direction, for a simple Q4.

There may already be a piece that moves Q4 (or K4) around somewhere, but I couldn't find it.

Q4 is used in Heavy Gravity Chess:

https://www.chessvariants.com/rules/heavy-gravity-chess

Well, at least it's a special rule and not a separate piece like this one.

Not sure what that means. All pieces move like they do because there are rules that specifies this. In general we consider pieces that move differently as different pieces.

Not a bad point, that; what I was saying is a little hard to fully explain without turning it into something that would fill the screen. Basically, it's just a different perspective.

20. Anvil. The Anvil, once placed, does not move on its own, though it may move through Relay and other means.

It's only for use in games that utilize drops. Its main ability is that, while drops normally have to be placed on vacant squares, the Anvil can only be used to capture.

In a 3D game, the Anvil starts on the top level, and locust-captures everything in its path -- friend or foe -- as it proceeds directly downward to the bottom.

Once placed, it stays where it is, blocking traffic until it's captured by the opponent.

(Not everything has to be of practical use in a game. I'd be extremely surprised -- though pleasantly so -- if someone decided to include this in their variant. Really, this is mostly for laughs.)

Regarding the Castellan (R4N) and the Abbot (B4N), Peter S. Hatch's Fantasy Grand Chess (2000) includes the Druid Army, with a Unicorn (R4FN) and a Bear (R4F). I cannot recall seeing a (B4WN) piece in any game.

Greg Strong's 16x12 variant Cataclysm (2007) includes the Tiger (R4F) and the Elephant (B4W). Also a Duke - moving three squares like a Queen. EDIT: the first "Q3 piece" here was the Maiden in R. Stephen Chafe's 38 squares variant PIRATES-HENGE-HO (1997). Jean-Louis Cazaux's 16x16 variant Terachess II (2020) has a Duchess - which is a Duke that can also jump two or three squares.

Thanks for the info, David! I'll want to take a look at those.

I've gone through and looked, and while the pieces look like great additions to the collection, the only one with a name that's not already in use somewhere is the Maiden, which does seem like a good alternate name for the Lady in Waiting -- and 3 spaces seems like a reasonable reduction from 4 on a small board like Chafe uses.

The Unicorn, Bear, Tiger, and Elephant could be preceded by something "Baby," "Lesser," or "Little" (since these are mainly smaller-move pieces than their namesakes, depending on what kind of Elephant you're using), especially if something can be figured out for the B4WN (Buffalo, perhaps?).

I hadn't really thought that much about short-by-one pieces before now... and now I'm thinking about short-by-slide and short-by-ride possibilities. Those can wait, though....

This kinda was my first thought for "beefing up," but I wasn't sure it'd be effective.

 

Probably the best. Like it falls on the telegraph pillar of the opponent:).

Probably the best. Like it falls on the telegraph pillar of the opponent:).

Shazam! :)

21. Fibnif. This is actually one of Ralph Betza's most infamous pieces, and I've seen it placed in a couple of games by other people here as well. It moves one space diagonally, or leaps along a Knight's forward and backward long moves, getting its name from its Betza notation: fbNF.

But I don't think anyone's ever designed a physical piece for it for in-person play. The name is a nonsense word, but the move is basically a Narrow Knight plus a Ferz, so this is what I ended up with.

Besides there being no other physical setup for certain games that deserve to be played in person, this also fueled an idea for tomorrow's companion piece.

Now I just need to figure out a good name for Q4N. Ideally, it should be related to either the Lady-in-Waiting, or one of the names for QN or QNN.

Queen mother?

22. Sniff. If the Fibnif is fbNF, then sNF is the Sniff.

I seem to have inadvertently deleted the move diagram I had posted, but basically it's Ferz + Wide Knight -- the Fibnif move, rotated 90 degrees.

Whether anyone will ever use this in a game, well, who "nose"? At least I've "scent" it out there in "odor" for people to consider.

You can find a Sniff with an illustrations to Tove Jansson’s fairy tales, and draw something like him.

Not a horrible idea, but I think I'll leave that for someone else.

Queen mother?

Of course! I should've thought of that myself!

23. Gerfod. In keeping with the theme of pieces named for their Betza notation, here's one that casts the illusion of that -- though it's actually the other way around.

My late wife usually made to-do lists for each day, and the first item was always GRFD -- "Get Ready For Day." Me being me, I'd pronounce it: "Gerfod." After a while I even designed (but never had built) a piece of furniture I called a "gerfod table": similar to a small console table, with drawers for accessories, socks, and underwear, plus a half-length mirror and hooks for hanging shirt, jacket, etc.

So how does this piece move? It can leap three diagonally like a Tripper (G), slide orthogonally like a Rook (R), or leap two spaces forward like a Dabbabah (fD) -- GRfD.

This may (notwithstanding Mr. Gilman) have the distinction of being the first fairy chess piece to be named for a piece of furniture.

(It might be interesting to see a furniture-themed set for Chess With Different Armies, with the Gerfod in the Rook's position.)

"This may (notwithstanding Mr. Gilman) have the distinction of being the first fairy chess piece to be named for a piece of furniture"

I wouldn't say so. For me a chess piece has to be used in a chess or chess variant, or a fairy chess problem. Otherwise, anyone could "invent" 10 chess pieces per day as there is no limit in the possible combinations. I suggest that you invent chess variants instead, where you may try to manage the inclusion of your pieces.

I wouldn't say so. For me a chess piece has to be used in a chess or chess variant, or a fairy chess problem. Otherwise, anyone could "invent" 10 chess pieces per day as there is no limit in the possible combinations. I suggest that you invent chess variants instead, where you may try to manage the inclusion of your pieces.

I'm doing so, with some of these as well as others. I specifically just started one with the Magus, Castellan, and Lady in Waiting (as well as Abbot and Bodyguard), and I may add the Fibnif and Sniff to that one; the big one I'm developing offline includes the Pirate and the Ghost, along with the piece I'll be presenting for today and several others; and my brain is developing a couple more that would include the Hangman and Rabbit, among others. I have some vague ideas for most of the others (specifically the Midnighter, the Samurai, and the Kimono Dragon), but something will come of them.

I am sometimes presenting things purely for laughs, like the Anvil; for illustrative purposes, like the Thunder; or for context with something else, like the Thoroughbred. Those are special cases, though.

24. Sphinx. The classic sphinx had the body of a lion, the wings of an eagle, and a human face. This piece combines the modern Lion, which can move one or leap two spaces (KAND); and the Eagle, which is an alternate form for the Gryphon, moving one space diagonally and then outward like a Rook (FyafsF), for a total move of KANDyafsF.

I initially conceived this piece as one that would dominate the skies as well as a Dragon. After putting together the moves, I can see that the Dragon's going to have to step up his game. In fact, I initially was thinking to use the Japanese Lion (KANDcaKmabK) rather than the modern one (KAND), but that would've been just too powerful. As it is, the Sphinx will dominate just about any board it's on -- and so is going to have a target on its back as surely as the Queen has one in standard Chess.

I'm admittedly not quite satisfied with this design, particularly in the middle of the shaft, but I'm also developing a more stylized head so both of those things will see updating eventually.

I wouldn't like to underrate your effort and passion, but in my opinion, your designs don't seem to stay in one stylistic line, which makes the whole project to be of lesser aesthetical value, although conceptually it's still interesting. Many of these designs seem to be somewhat overcomplicated, not speaking of their reliability if printed. The pieces should be comfortable to be touched by hand, after all, so ergonomics is a thing here. As a guy who played with hundreds of chess sets during my life, I can speak that a badly designed chess set can ruin the whole experience to the extent that even an interesting game will fully lose its appeal. If the project is actually printed, I doubt if a player can fully enjoy a game played with such chessmen.

I would suggest that leaping pieces, such as the knight would get just their heads, without other elements, following the existing tradition. All other ones must be made of simple geometric shapes, like pawn, rook, etc. Minor details, such as a cut in a bishop's head or rook's bricks are acceptable if they look balanced. There are endless combinations, and they are very simple to be made.

A piece's basement must be noticeably larger than its middle or upper part. Both for stability and aesthetical reasons, a thing ignored by many people who design chess sets.

I generally do not like Staunton design. To me the pieces in it often look disproportional, but they all have stable and large basements.

Chess is a war game. It is already not comfortable for me that there are so many animal chessmen, which make many variants to be somewhat childish, at least in my perception. Why not use names for military ranks, tools, or anything of this sort? But a chess piece, named after furniture is something that can hardly be understood.

I always preferred plastic to wood while playing chess. But when a chess piece can be easily made out of wood without manually carving anything excluding simple parts, it seems to be a strong advantage.

In today's world of AI, it is simpler than ever to design something like a chess piece. I believe that after about a couple of years we will be able to get a complete set of 3d models for any chess variant by just describing how we would like it to be.

I am sorry for my rant on the subject, don't really take it seriously.