[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
Chess-Battle. War variant from the Soviet-Union, 1933. (12x12, Cells: 128) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Anonymous wrote on Tue, Jun 17, 2003 09:42 PM UTC:Good ★★★★In this 1933 game from Russia, Cavalry is (Knight+Camel), but over enemy pieces it requires a specific pathway, only one being allowed. Both (N+C), or 'Gnu', and (N+Zebra), or 'Gazelle', have been used sometimes under varying names, both compounds about ten times in Pritchard's 'ECV'. Only once in Pritchard is there a piece that is (N+C+Z), a triple-compound leaper. Cazaux's 2001 Gigachess here in CVP re-uses that thirty-year-old (N+C+Z)leaper calling it Buffalo. Gilman's 2004 Great Herd is apparently the first ever use of (C+Z), or 'Bison', in a game.
Maus' <a href='../diffmove.dir/cavalry-chess.html'>Cavalry Chess</a> uses a N+C+Z, and on an 8x8 board, too, and dates from the 1920's. But that's a really extreme game.
In the rules is not clearly stipulated, whether the Headquarter, which moves as a normal chess-king and also 'plays the role of king' is allowed to take pieces. Please answer this question. Thanks in advance, Mario.
Joe Joyce wrote on Wed, Sep 19, 2007 12:07 AM UTC:Mario, historically, headquarters units often fought. As the rules do state: 'The headquarter moves as a king, and also plays the role of king', then with no other information, one would have to assume the piece may capture, but may not move into or remain in check. This is the only reasonable interpretation of the rules as written that I can see.
Joe Joyce wrote under 'Proliferation' 19.Sept.07, ''Personally, I don't like rifle capture pieces and gimmicky pieces like planes. So right off the top I think it is a Poor game.'' --about this Chess-Battle. So, clearly Joyce dislikes Charles Daniels' recent Flying Bombers(airplane-like) too. Agreeing with Joyce about those two groups of pieces, we do not care for Fugue, for example, utilizing Rifle or 1996-patented Quantum's rifle or Schmittberger's either by the standard of playability. However, despite personal taste the latter should be credited its fine originality for year 1981. Likewise, Joyce's evaluation of Chess-Battle should not be poorly based on one criterion, the reaction against Rifle-types. Chess-Battle dates remarkably from year 1933, before 90% of CVs existed, and has many original and appealing features. They include first use of triple compound leaper, distinction between jumping over enemy or friendly pieces, and unique mix of short- and long-range, to name only three. The 'Rifle' gun and machine-gun are not the entire game and with imagination could be cut back or eliminated in personally-suited variations.
Joe Joyce wrote on Sat, Oct 27, 2007 12:42 AM UTC:Sometimes context can give a different perspective on one's words. From the previous comment on this game: 2007-10-22 George Duke Verified as George Duke Excellent Joe Joyce wrote under 'Proliferation' 19.Sept.07, ''Personally, I don't like rifle capture pieces and gimmicky pieces like planes. So right off the top I think it is a Poor game.'' --about this Chess-Battle. Following is the paragraph these 2 sentences were taken from: Chess Battle; heck, I may just surprise you here. I am very conservative in my approach to chess variants. Personally, I don't like rifle capture, pieces that are invulnerable to all or most enemy pieces, and gimmicky pieces like planes. I also don't much like mamras, wusses, or anti-kings. SO right off the top, I think it is a poor game. However, been wrong before, will be again, so would have to play the game before I could rate it anything, since I can't give it a default 'good'. Because I don't like something doesn't mean it's not a good idea. I will, quite likely, design things that will use one or more of the 6 pieces I just panned, assuming I think the design is good. Kriegspeil I find to be good, though I've never played it - I like the idea a lot. Most of the 'wargame' variants I looked at tonight, I did not like. But I am working on wargame variants of my own. I just want them to be obviously chess variant simulations of wargames [unless they play very well]. 2007-09-19 Joe Joyce
This thread is for Chess-Battle, a fine game chosen by CVP founder Hans Bodlaender, using Pritchard's then new ECV as major source. The game dates from before the modern era of CVs (1933) and its power derives duly from respect for that historicity, as well as being eminently playable. The early CVPage write-up from 1996 is among the first 60 or 80 CVs getting separate Rules treatment. Chess-Battle's relation to other CVs from the rachetting-up 1930's is evident, a popular time for war-theming. The same decade's Novo Chess from the other end of Europe is another example using military units. Cavalry and Soldier here in Chess-Battle are interesting compound movers. Cavalry incorporates both Knight and Camel distances and cannot jump over enemy's pieces.
Russia has an old 12x12 (=144 squares) -- minus a few -- from before World War II.
The linked Betza interview at RalphBetzaSpeaks stresses your work trivializes if not knowing what went before.
A little behindhand addition to the discussion of the headuarters capturing capabilities. Joe Joyce made quite logical assumption that headquarters was able to capture. But there is a following question: what are it's capturing limitations? I also heard opinion that headquarters was not able to capture, because in this case it's supposed that it can capture any piece, but Yurgelevich tried to make this game as realistic as possible for chess-like game, and commander can't be "Rambo with bazooka". My own assumption: headquarters can capture with same limitations as infantry (can't capture the tank). But in this case another question follows: does it capture only in same directions as soldiers, and can it make double move on white squares? Since rule about double step is said only about infantry, while about headquarters it's only said that it can move as king, it's logical that it can move as king only. But on the other hand - double step rule probably implied that some places in real live (especially in war conditions) have more practicable paths or better transport connection than the others. So, why headquarters can't use same ways, if this game is that realistic?
10 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.