Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

75. Ancress. and 76. Metropolitan. These are a couple of pre-existing pieces, both from Charles Gilman's Conclave Ecumenical Chess. I think they're worth looking at, especially for large variants (12x12 and larger).

The Ancress is a combination of the Rhinoceros (sometimes also called the Anchorite) and the Rook. As a Rhinoceros, it can move one space orthogonally, and then proceed from that point diagonally like a Bishop.

The Metropolitan is a combination of the Gryphon and Bishop. As a Gryphon, it can move one space diagonally, and then proceed from that point orthogonally like a Rook.

Each has both orthogonal and diagonal slides, yielding Queen-like properties without actually duplicating the Queen; while arguably more powerful than the Queen, each has something it cannot do that the Queen can (direct diagonal or orthogonal moves, respectively).

Aside from any concern about the Metropolitan's shape making it difficult to grip, I'm actually quite pleased with how these two came out. Both would be fairly distinctive on a chessboard.

Those names look very strange for me. Well, English is not my mother tongue but what are they? Metropolitan evokes for me a ... subway. I guess you are thinking to something else, but what?

Ancress was an unknown word for me. By googling I see it is an obsolete form of anchoress, which is also not an usual word.

I think that if I had to use these 2 compound pieces, I wouldn't use these names.

As a matter of fact, I have already used these in a big Zillions file that I use to design my games. I'm using Asian mythologic names: Qilin for Rook+Rhinoceros; Simurgh for Bishop+Gryphon

In case someone is interested I also use: Cerberus: Rook+Gryphon(a.k.a. Reaper); Hydra: Bishop+Rhinoceros (a.k.a. Harvester); Godzilla: Gryphon+Rhinoceros (not my proposal)

About the 3D design, I dislike the one you have on the right-side. It doesn't look at all Staunton-style. Also, it doesn't inspire any idea of its strenght, nobody would think that it is stronger than a Queen.

Fair enough point; I should've explained the names a bit further (even though they're Gilman's).

An ancress (a word unfamiliar even to most native English-speakers) is a woman who has cut herself off from secular society entirely for religious reasons, staying in small quarters in an abbey, convent, or other religious building. The word is the feminine form of "anchorite," for a man who does the same (it's also Gilman's name for a Manticore/Rhinoceros).

I'm presuming Mr. Gilman was using Metropolitan to describe a woman who does the opposite: living among the people in a city, being around them as much as possible. (Probably a better word for it, in that context, would've been Socialite, but Metropolitan is what's stuck.) What I was going for there is a sort of Eiffel Tower/Empire State Building mashup, though now that you mention it I probably shouldn't have set aside my usual base. This is one of a handful of pieces where a good, logical design escaped me.

I like the Simurgh as an alternate name for the Anchorite; but isn't Qilin basically a different rendering of the well-established Kirin?

I do thank you for your feedback on those; a suggestion for a better look for the Metropolitan would be very welcome (especially from you, Jean-Louis).

As for those other three, I just managed to get together workable Reaper and Harvester pieces. For Cerberus I've tripled what the Musketeer's Dog can do, from F2sW to BsW3; Hydra is a cool-sounding piece, but evokes images of something extending the Snake, possibly as the Gryphon/Rehinoceros. Similarly, the name of Godzilla evokes something like a Fire Dragon that takes up four squares. (But that's just me; half the established pieces in this game, including most of the orthodox ones, don't quite scan for me, with the Bishop and Knight being two of the worst offenders.)

For Bob:

I'm presuming Mr. Gilman was using Metropolitan to describe a woman who does the opposite: living among the people in a city, being around them as much as possible.

Per M&B13, Metropolitan is apparently “a rank in many episcopal churches”, presumably the same as described here on Wikipedia; the connection is thus with the Bishop component in the same way that he uses feminine forms to indicate Rook components.

If you can somehow muster a Pallium that'd probably be about as on point as you can get; failing that, perhaps sth cathedral‐like? (Idr whether you've done a cathedral yet; my usual browser setup is reluctant to show the pictures and in any case seventy‐odd pieces is a lot to remember!)

Re Qilin vs Kirin

yes Qilin and Kirin are the Chinese and Japanese version of the same mythical animal. Probably inspired by the African giraffe in old ages. I'll see if I can find a better name. For Hydra and Cerberus, I wanted a three-head beast because the pieces they represent are triple barrels. The Godzilla was not a name given by me, the source is older although I don't remember who/where at the moment.

I'll replace the Qilin by an Indrik, a mythical oriental beast related to the rhinoceros, as well as the simurgh is related to the anqa (which became Murray's gryphon). Indrik=Rhino+R; Simurgh=Gryphon+B.

Per M&B13, Metropolitan is apparently “a rank in many episcopal churches”, presumably the same as described here on Wikipedia; the connection is thus with the Bishop component in the same way that he uses feminine forms to indicate Rook components.

If you can somehow muster a Pallium that'd probably be about as on point as you can get; failing that, perhaps sth cathedral‐like? (Idr whether you've done a cathedral yet; my usual browser setup is reluctant to show the pictures and in any case seventy‐odd pieces is a lot to remember!)

I think a pallium would be both doable and logical. I'd probably want to add a staff or some sort of headgear to make it visually distinctive from behind, but that should work! I'll get to work on that tomorrow.

And I do tend to be reluctant to use physical structures for pieces; the only other exception I've made, discounting the Rook, War Machine, and pieces based directly on them (such the Fortress and Helepolis), have been the Guard and the Pyramid, which also don't have my usual base.

yes Qilin and Kirin are the Chinese and Japanese version of the same mythical animal. Probably inspired by the African giraffe in old ages. I'll see if I can find a better name. For Hydra and Cerberus, I wanted a three-head beast because the pieces they represent are triple barrels. The Godzilla was not a name given by me, the source is older although I don't remember who/where at the moment.

For a new name for your Qilin, you could try Azure Dragon, Yinglong, Kihawahine, Ryu (my choice), or Rainbow Serpent.

I tend to think of the Hydra as having nine heads, but if each head is a direction there could be eight, each representing a "triple barrel." (You go ahead and keep the Cerberus and Hydra the way you like it. I'm just giving my perspective, not asking you to change anything.)

The only place I can find the Godzilla piece referenced is Who is Who on Eight by Eight; even the Wikipedia page directs there, and I don't quite understand the reference made on the page. (Is there a Fantasy Chess on ZoG?)

Our comments crossed each other. I take Indrik for Rhino+Rook.

Our comments crossed each other. I take Indrik for Rhino+Rook.

Excellent choice!

OK, my turn to seek out a little brainstorming.

What sort of modification would be on a piece labeled as "silent"? I'm wanting to make a couple of pun-based pieces (Silent Knight and Vao of Silence; there could be other possibilities), but I'm not sure how I'd apply it to a piece's move, nor how I'd represent it visually.

It can be either a restriction or an enhancement, as long as it applies equally well to leapers and sliders (and something that can be induced, in the manner of the Relay Knight).

What about a piece that would have the following properties:

• It may only move to a square where it is not threatened by an opponent piece. and
• It may capture, or check, only if another piece of its side is also threatening its target.

If it could be coded, I'd be curious to play chess with "silent pieces".

Nice thoughts! If that, or something like it, could be coded into the ID, I'd definitely use it for the two pieces mentioned. (The Vao of Silence imposes silence on other pieces; that would be the really hard part!)

Let me get this straight: you are not allowed to step to an attacked square, but you are allowed to stay on one of you get attacked? That would then be the difference with a royal piece.

Yes HG, I was thinking about that: a "silent" piece is not allowed to step to an attacked square but is allowed to stay there if that square becomes attacked. It is a difference indeed with a royal piece. Wouldn't it work?

I'd think that such a thing would be as difficult to work in as the restriction on my Chicken Pawn's backward move that it only works if the piece is under attack. At least, I think it'd take a bit of reprogramming for either to be done (that is, either having the "silent" restriction or imposing it on others, as well as the Chicken Pawn's restriction).

Such restrictions would be similar to a checking rule, making the difference between legal and pseudo-legal moves. Since the Diagram currently highlights pseudo-legal moves, they would only affect the AI.

The rule for not moving onto attacked squares is already implemented, as a generalization of the Chu-Shogi Lion-capture rule. The latter is implemented by temporarily designating the capturing piece as (absolute) royal, so that having exposed it to capture would be considered illegal. The capture matrix allows you to invoke this in a type-specific way, and you could specify it for the silent piece for capture of anything, including the empty square (i.e. the non-captures).

The 'second attacker' rule is more complex; the easiest way to implement it would be replacement of the main loop of the move generator by one that first generates all moves except the captures of the silent piece (which would be the normal one if we just don't define any captures at all on the silent piece). This should then be followed by a scan through the generated move list to see which enemy pieces have captures on them, and then generating capture moves of the silent piece exclusively on those. Or perhaps do the first move generation including all captures of the silent piece, and the do two scans through the move list: one to identify victims of captures by other pieces, and then to delete all captures of the silent piece of other victims than those. In any case this would involve a fairly large amount of custom scripting.

This all assumes that the requirement of a second attacker means a second pseudo-legal attacker. If the second attack would have to be fully legal, it would become far more complex, as you would have to figure out which captures in the move list expose your King, which requires searching one half-move further ahead, and generating the opponent reply to each of your captures there.

Chicken Pawns are also worse; these cannot be implemented by post-editing of your own move list, but are also dependent on opponent moves. I don't recall what the exact rules for these are, in particular what happens if they cannot withdraw, or can only withdraw to squares that are also under attack. If you would lose in that case they are simply royal pieces. Perhaps except that they might not use their forward moves for getting out of check, which would e similar to not being allowed to castle out of check.

Thank you HG. It was only some guesses from my side to answer Bob's open brainstorming about a "silent" pieces. At this stage, no need to develop any code.

Thank you HG. It was only some guesses from my side to answer Bob's open brainstorming about a "silent" pieces. At this stage, no need to develop any code.

Agreed. I might use that idea for "silent" and "silencing" pieces in the future; I'm also still open to other suggestions, ideas, and trains of thought. No need for any new code for that any time soon.

(I may use the Chicken Pawn soon for a "food fight" game, but I'm not definite about that; a better idea may arise.)

77. Anti-Pawn. It's been a while since I featured a pawn for the Piece of the Day; whether this fits the category is a matter of opinion.

This could also be called the Un-Pawn, Counter-Pawn, or Backward Pawn. It moves like a standard Pawn, but backward only: one orthogonal move backward, or capturing one diagonal move backward.

The player never starts with an Anti-Pawn; rather, a forward-moving pawn (or spear, or other forward-moving piece) reaches a promotion zone, and promotes to it, so it can "advance" from the far end of the board back toward the player. Once the Anti-Pawn reaches the first row (or, if you prefer, the Pawn Row), it then promotes again, this time to something much more powerful (such as a Japanese Lion, Tengu, Sphinx, Sabertoothrider, or such). After all, it just traversed the board twice without getting captured; some type of extra-special reward should be in place.

As for the appearance, I just figured that if a standard Pawn had a sphere on top, the Anti-Pawn should have a cube. There's no getting them mixed up that way!

78. Moonrider. I only recently discovered this piece, created by Mark Hedden for his variant Ganymede Chess. It's an extension of the Nightrider, adding a Zebra's (2,3) leap to its reportoire. (NNZ)

In Ganymede, the Nightrider promotes to Moonrider by making a capture, but to my mind it could also be part of the starting army in a high-powered, big-board game.

I'm not sure why adding a Zebra move turns a Nightrider into a Moonrider, so I probably won't be adding that crescent to many (if any) other pieces.

PS @ Jean-Louis:

I've gone ahead and created designs for the Simurgh (L) and Indrik (R), and I'll be using them to replace the Ancress and Metropolitan where I've used them (because I like your ideas better than Mr. Gilman's for this).

I'm sure you could do better on both, but at least they're here.

That's fun. Thanks.

Another question for you: in my "reserve" Zillions file (my vault, with dozens of pieces, you would like), I have a WGH. Have you ever met this one? As I haven't, the working name I use to give it is a Colugo. Well, because it is weak and has the ability to fly/glide far away.

I don't see a lot of pieces with both Threeleaper and Tripper moves; I think the Cheetah, the Sabertooth, and your Troll are about it. And after looking up the calugo, I think that's a perfect name for the WGH regardless of what anyone else calls it -- though of course, it needs a good FGH to go with it. (I'd recommend the Draco.)

Draco >> very good