Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

216. Dodgeball. This piece came into my mind during a recent discussion on the new S and T atoms now available in XBetza; specifically, the T seemed a bit useless on its own. I actually came up with two solutions for that with compounds; this one is the one I find the most interesting.

The Dodgeball moves without capture by stepping one space diagonally, or leaping (1,2) like a Knight. To capture, it takes a piece three spaces away diagonally or orthogonally, then makes a Knight's (1,2) leap back toward its starting point. (This makes the capturing move end in one of two places available to its non-capturing moves.) (mFmNmpafmpafcabmpafsmK)

The last part of the move was supposed to be [cT-bmN], but the system doesn't quite support leapers after the first part of a bracket move, so I worked out the essentially same thing manually.

@Daniel:

Sorry for taking a bit on this. I did the edits that H.G. recommended. The Black Sergeants should work fine now.

[Z?R] appeared in Wide Tiger Chess.

[Z?R] appeared in Wide Tiger Chess.

I remember something about that. But wasn't it called the Unicorn, or something else already taken?

Edit: I found it. It's one of about 50 versions of Dragon.

Dragon.

Yeah. I'm hoping someone's given it a name that isn't already in use.

It's one of about 50 versions of Dragon.

Yeah, sorry…

I'm afraid Vanguard still isn't working. I think the second sergeant needs to be

1  1  1  -1     3 // sergeant(5744)
1  1 -1  -1     3
1  3  0  -1     3
1  1  1  0     1
1  1 -1  0     1
0);

Yeah, I forgot to change the 1's to -1's. I'll get to that promptly, here....

Edit: OK, it's done.

217. Octopus. There actually are a number of different takes on the Octopus, most of them some type of bent or doubly-bent rider with eight paths away from the starting point. I have nothing against that, except that most such pieces have other names.

My preference for the Octopus is the version presented by Charles Daniel in his variant Octopus Chess. This is one of those bent-rider pieces, in that it moves to an adjacent space, turns 45°, and then slides forward; the difference is that it must move at least three spaces. ([K-fsK-fQ])

Note that this is not recommended on a small or standard board; 10x10 should be considered the bare minimum, and 12x12 is more like it.

The model could probably be used for just about any other take on what an Octopus should move like (assuming it isn't too ugly to put on a board).

218. Tarantula. A recent, brief discussion about the new S and T atoms in XBetza (shortenings, respectively, for AD and GH) led to a suggestion that they could be called Spider and Tarantula. While I find the suggestion elegant, there are already other Spider pieces (including one that I posted just last week), not to mention that the S already is known as the Alibaba; and the T by itself is fairly useless (outside of fairy chess problems), since it's only able to reach one-ninth of the board's spaces.

But of course the T doesn't have to stand by itself. The T part lets the piece leap three spaces orthogonally or diagonally; add a K, and it can also step to any adjancent square. (KT)

From the middle of a standard 8x8 board, this Tarantula can reach any square in two steps. This "amphibian" effect (even though a tarantula is an arachnid) makes this piece more powerful than a Rook -- according to the Play-Test Applet, it's on par with a Gnu or Unicorn.

While this model superficially resembles the Spider, it's noticeably larger in every respect, so the two should have no problem sharing a board.

Interesting convergence: it is because, long ago, I was intrigued by the GH move, that we call now T, that I also thought that alone it was almost useless. Then, I add the pawn's move to it in the same manner that you add the King's. And I called it the Troll, which, coincidently is a word starting with a T. At that time the T was not existing in Betza's notation.

To continue telling my life (if anyone cares...), in my experiments (with Zillions for example), I also used a KGH (now KT). I called it a Countess. Mainly because it was less powerful than the Duchess which is KADGH (or KST now) on my planet.

And for the ADGH (now ST), I finally adopted Musketeer's Hawk which has no relation at all with the other pieces, but is rather well fitting with that flying move.

That is a cool set of coincidences.

(And you may note that my Duchess tends to be KST as well!)

Now if we only had a single letter for CZ (Bison), which we could extend to NYDYFX. ZYCYAXNX, etc. But that -- especially the latter part -- is undoubtedly too much to ask for.

219. Portable Hole. This is another piece in the "Mostly For Laughs" category, though it might have some real use in a game.

The Portable Hole can move to any empty space on the board. Once there, it's treated like a normal hole in the board; it cannot be moved, captured, or landed on by the opponent. It can, however, be moved by the player who controls it. (mU, iron, capturematrix=^)

The piece's ability to be a pain in the butt for the opponent can cause the endgame to drag out, and turn a potential checkmate into a stalemate or repeated-position draw. To alleviate that, some designers may want to limit its mobility somehow: limit the distance it can move, forbid it from moving two turns in a row, forbid it from moving when the King is in check, etc.

All this leads to some questions that H.G. might be able to answer:

1. How well does this piece represent a hole, as far as using just iron? Does it need anything else?
2. Can any of the suggested restrictions be represented on an Interactive Diagram?
3. Can radial leapers leap over a hole?

This is also an exception to my efforts to make my piece adhere to FIDE size rules. After all, there's no such thing as a tall hole.

Leapers can leap over a hole; they never sense any othe square than thir destination. Lame leapers cannot.

Hoppers cannot hop over holes, which are treated as off-board squares. But you could define, say, [oR-fmR] to get a piece that can hop over a hole. Iron pieces are pieces, so hoppers can hop over them. Unless the captureMatrix would forbid it.

There is currently no restriction possible on U. Conceivable would be a range, or directional modifiers that would be interpreted according to the K or oblique system, depending on the destination.

Hoppers cannot hop over holes, which are treated as off-board squares. But you could define, say, [oR-fmR] to get a piece that can hop over a hole. Iron pieces are pieces, so hoppers can hop over them. Unless the captureMatrix would forbid it.

So, it seems that adding captureMatrix=^ would make it equal. (or would captureMatrix=$ be better?)

There is currently no restriction possible on U. Conceivable would be a range, or directional modifiers that would be interpreted according to the K or oblique system, depending on the destination.

I've actually been hoping for a range limiter for U, as a trailing number, the way such a number would limit B, R, or Q.

I can understand, though, if there's no way to use modifiers on U to represent a true Equihopper. (I tried paifU a while back, but of course it didn't work.)

Portable Hole. This is another piece in the "Mostly For Laughs" category, though it might have some real use in a game.

I have to disagree with both the name and the piece. Let's keep it professional. 

But I agree with the idea. We need a piece as a placeholder that cannot capture, or be captured. I've been thinking for a while about Penguins, Swans, or other protected species that could play that role. 

@Florin: it would be surprising that this piece was not invented by the problemists. Interestingly looking at Alain Biénabe in the (French) Le Guide des échecs, I see the Red Cross. Like a Pyramid, it cannot take or be taken. It may move, but only to block a check on its K. For that it follows the shorter geometrical path. Invented by J.G.Ingram in 1934.

There is also the Blocker (J.Buchwald, 1934) an "inert" piece that may be transfered from the square where it stands to any other free square. It does not capture. It is not said if it can be captured, I would think not as it said "inert".

Let's keep it professional.

This, he says to the guy who invented Food Fight.

Ralph Betza, one of the giants of CVs, had humourous names for pieces at times, too. Not everyone liked it, but an inventor has a final say on his names, unless an editor somewhere objects, or another inventor uses a different name in his own CV(s).

The Duck in Duck Chess cannot be captured, and teleports mU. But it can be moved by both players, in addition to their normal move.

The Duck in Duck Chess cannot be captured, and teleports mU. But it can be moved by both players, in addition to their normal move.

That actually is close to what my first thought was to do with the Portable Hole, except that moving it would be done as the normal move, and once moved it couldn't be moved again over the next two half-turns. If "neutral" (third-colored) pieces ever become a thing in ID/GC, I might just implement it that way.

So, it seems like Buchwald's Blocker no?

So, it seems like Buchwald's Blocker no?

Very, very close, depending on whether Buchwald did indeed intend for his Blocker to be uncapturable. There's still the question of whether a Blocker could be hopped over, which a Portable Hole cannot (even though I have yet to add captureMatrix=^ or =$ to the listing, as of this moment).

Used in Sirlin's Chess.