[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
Extended Chess. Standard setup with changes in moves and win conditions. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Hello Mathew, thanks for your input. The turn of the bishop is made always there is an open path (without pieces of any kind) and can repeat in the range of 4 squares. Say you have a piece on b1, the bishop could do this: b1-c2-b3-c4 that is, the bishop just made 2 turns while in an open path. Now, the only restriction is the bishop cant turn when he is leaping, like this: A bishop in b1, a piece of any kind in c2, now, the bishop leaps from b1-d3, and from there could turn to c4, take on c2 if its an enemy piece, go further to e4 or turn to e2. Final movements would be b1-d3-e2, other b1-d3-c4 or directly b1-e4. Indeed its a powerful piece, his real power in 'action' being unknown by myself, for it would be needed a lot of games with critical eye to define his power. Also as the bishop can change of color it mades it still more unpredictable, but I hope a useful piece. The restriction of 4 squares of range give the piece a positional approach. About the knight, is simply as having the option of moving the knight in 2 times; for example we could have a knight in b1 and he could have this option of move: b1-c3-b5, that is he just made 2 moves. Another option could be from b1 to a3 or c3 or d2, as a standard knight. This option of 2 moves extend the range of the knight to really a world of options and the deep of manouvering possible with such a piece is also unknown to me. But by reason of this same wide range in case of a check the knight has only the first leap to do this. So if in the example above we have a knight on b1 and a king on b5, there will be no check at all, altough the knight could reach that square in 2 moves. The knight could jump first to c3 and from that position there will be a check as in standard chess. It could be say that the knight jumps either one or two times, but checks at the range of a common knight, that is, at one leap of distance. In the pawns issue, I guess you just found a point of investigation for chess++, the truth is that the game was invented with the dinamic pawns as a first idea. They could defend better themselves, they could retreat as soldiers in campain, in general his movility and possibilities to block are extended. As you say, they could interfere with the leaping pieces, knight and bishop, and this interaction is something to understand in play, in fact in many games. I understand your point about the intentions of becoming an evolution to the actual game of chess, there are really so many variants with interesting moves or new pieces and I consider much of them as a change or evolution to chess, but myself think that traditional chess is full of subtleties and that is already very good. So the part of being an evolution is in the sense as all the rest of variants, in trying to offer a different option and if its really playable the better. If you wish to have a closer look at the game as it is played, I have made an article in the Journal of this correspondence chess site: www.schemingmind.com In that place are the same games as above but they could be seen in a dinamic board.
How is this supposed to be any kind of logical evolution of Chess?
<P>Hi Fergus, I guess this is the line you are refering to:
'Extended Chess aims at being a logical evolution to the game of chess
and the innovations follow a logical way within the same idea of movement
of traditional chess.'</P>
<P>The concept of evolution in the game I'm refering to is that of making a
change in the movement of the pieces but following the idea of its
ancestors. Say a bishop, in extended chess bishops still move in diagonal
but they have changed or evolutioned and now can also make turns. So for
example, a bishop can now rebound in an edge or made a zig-zag move. Same
with knights, they move like traditional knights but have the option of an
extra move. Tough maybe youll be surpraised to know that the original idea
was to give the knight a 3-leap move. In tests I realized that the 2-leap
move was already complex and that the possibilities that brings are
interesting enough.</P>
<P>And pawns the same they are like a dynamic army being able to attack or
retreat at will.</P>
<P>Still, as I stated in my last post, I consider almost many of the variants an evolution of the game of chess, so its not in a sense of a right and only way to play a modified game of chess.</P>
<P>From my point of view this variation can be considered by the moment as an amusing one to play for the wide possibilities that appear in every game, and if this variation has the deepness and coherent structure to remain a serious game is something that must be seen only after many games of playing it under a critical eye.</P>
<P>You must see the short tale I wrote in schemingmind (the link is at the
very end of the 2 games) to see what Im refering as an amusing variation,
for I guess the history more or less identifies itself with it.</P>
Greg Strong wrote on Tue, Oct 5, 2004 04:08 AM UTC:This game is interesting enough that I would like to try it, but I would like to have seen a little more introduction; that is, a bit more rational for why these specific rules were chosen. It seems almost all pieces have been changed, but not in any consistent way. It says that you have increased the mobility of some pieces, and decreased others to provide 'an equalization of forces' ... which makes a lot of sense ... but the two pieces in standard Chess which are pretty much equal (Bishop and Knight) you have potentialy un-balanced by changing both. In particular, I think you have made the Knight better than the Bishop. In any event, I would like to see some explaination of how this balances things (and exactly what is now balanced.)
You say 'I consider almost many of the variants an evolution of the game of chess,' which allows you call your game an evolution of Chess in a relatively meaningless way that doesn't distinguish it from other variants. But what I'm wondering about is what makes this a LOGICAL evolution of Chess. The phrase 'logical evolution of Chess' suggests a natural development of Chess towards its logical culmination.
Mikke wrote on Tue, Oct 5, 2004 05:31 AM UTC:Hi Gregory, Im happy you had found the game playable, and I must tell you that there is already another introduction sent and I think chessvariants will change it very soon. Precisely in the new introduction the term balanced is not included, for the phrase 'equalization of forces' is certainly a rather daring concept, and I must say its a personal appreciation, for it is not possible even for me to state that as a fact. As you say the knight and bishop could indeed unbalance the game, tough Im not certain of this too. Take for instance the bishop, you mention that the knight is better than the bishop, while I personally, as a guessing more than a proved fact, think that the bishop is a very powerful piece, for the capacity of leaping, twisting and changing of color gives the bishop a great adaptability to almost any structure in the board. But then again, is this really so? Are the bishop and knight really pieces with the same or different power? To know this for certain I think many games played during a long amount of time are necessary. About the changes made to the pieces they were made thinking in the original movements and consecuently they still remain with the original idea of its ancestors, being the change in the order of an extension of those movements, so I think there is consistence at following a probable evolution in the use of the pieces.
Mikke wrote on Tue, Oct 5, 2004 05:56 AM UTC:Hello Fergus, I indeed think Extended Chess distinguish it self from other variants, being the changes implemented only a way of many to develop a new variant. About the logical culmination, this is something related with the above stated, for in my opinion there is not only one logical culmination to a probable evolution or change made to the game of chess, and I found the logic more in following a determined pattern, that would be the past characteristics of the pieces, and the way they were changed to end with a version that was based in those original pieces. I must tell you that I had take care in not overloading that 'evolution', for sometime I was asking myself what would happen if the teletransportation capacity of other pieces appearing and disappearing at holes in the 64 squares board would be implemented. But I think that after the tests made, the resulting game could be yet distinctly identified as a direct variant of traditional chess.
8 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.