Greg Strong wrote on Thu, Apr 20, 2017 12:48 AM UTC:
Interesting that you've adopted the Brouhaha rule for introducing extra pieces onto the board. I'm glad you liked that - I think it is a good approach. I like it better than the 'gateing' in of pieces in Seirawan Chess, but I am biased :)
Regarding Apothecary as a whole, my personal feeling is that you are trying to do too much. Beyond adding extra pieces and enlarging the board, you seem to be doing all the following things (some of which are probably good, but in total it feels too much):
Extra non-capturing moves for standard pieces like Knight
The 50-move rule is now 150 moves
Complicated promotion rule
Extra pocket pawns at different times, with timing determined by complicated formula
Pieces introduced from disappearing squares (Brouhaha rule)
Complicated point allocation system for tournament matches
Fool/Joker mimic piece
Randomized setup
I would personally get rid of at least numbers 2, 4, and 6 from the above list. Number 2 and 4 are, I think, intended to address the issue of draws. Draws are a serious problem in orthodox chess, but I very much doubt they will be an issue here. With the extra power on the board and tactical depth added by different (new) movement types and mimic piece, I would not expect hardly any draws.
As for #1, is there any particular reasoning behind both having the extra moves, and what the extra moves are? It seems arbitrary. In particular, I don't like the (3, 3) leap of the Knight in Apothecary 2. One of the main properties of the knight is that it changes color with each move so it cannot "triangulate" - it cannot move and still continue attacking any of the same squares. The 3, 3 leap cancels this property.
Anyway, my suggestion, for what little it is worth, is to start out a little more simply. Remove a little complexity, publish the rules and start playing on Game Courier. See if people are interested and get feedback from actual players. You can always expand or modify the rules later.
Interesting that you've adopted the Brouhaha rule for introducing extra pieces onto the board. I'm glad you liked that - I think it is a good approach. I like it better than the 'gateing' in of pieces in Seirawan Chess, but I am biased :)
Regarding Apothecary as a whole, my personal feeling is that you are trying to do too much. Beyond adding extra pieces and enlarging the board, you seem to be doing all the following things (some of which are probably good, but in total it feels too much):
I would personally get rid of at least numbers 2, 4, and 6 from the above list. Number 2 and 4 are, I think, intended to address the issue of draws. Draws are a serious problem in orthodox chess, but I very much doubt they will be an issue here. With the extra power on the board and tactical depth added by different (new) movement types and mimic piece, I would not expect hardly any draws.
As for #1, is there any particular reasoning behind both having the extra moves, and what the extra moves are? It seems arbitrary. In particular, I don't like the (3, 3) leap of the Knight in Apothecary 2. One of the main properties of the knight is that it changes color with each move so it cannot "triangulate" - it cannot move and still continue attacking any of the same squares. The 3, 3 leap cancels this property.
Anyway, my suggestion, for what little it is worth, is to start out a little more simply. Remove a little complexity, publish the rules and start playing on Game Courier. See if people are interested and get feedback from actual players. You can always expand or modify the rules later.