Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

~~Earlier~~ ⇧Reverse Order⇩ ~~Later~~

Builder chess. Introducing the Builder. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]

Charles Gilman wrote on Thu, Jan 6, 2011 06:44 AM UTC:Good ★★★★

What happens when a promoted Pawn is captured? Does it revert to being a Pawn or is it treated as whatever it was promoted to?

💡📝Hafsteinn Kjartansson wrote on Thu, Jan 6, 2011 03:19 PM UTC:

Good question. My idea was that it should become a pawn again, exchanging with the opponent's pawns:

But your idea's good, too.

By the way, the builder is a very strong piece. I'm working on some restrictions to make it fit better in FIDE chess. I'll post them here soon.

Hafsteinn.

(zzo38) A. Black wrote on Mon, Jan 10, 2011 08:55 PM UTC:

One possible restriction is that you are not allowed to move to a position in which you capture if you do not have a piece to replace it with (except that you do not need to replace the king? (but you would still need to be able to replace other pieces next to the king if you moved there)).

💡📝Hafsteinn Kjartansson wrote on Wed, Jan 12, 2011 02:48 PM UTC:

Good idea!
But I still think some restrictions on checking/mating would be needed. Any ideas?

Daniil Frolov wrote on Sat, Jan 15, 2011 02:14 PM UTC:

What about this: builder captures by withdrawing and approaching?
By the way, original builder looks like fire devil from Tenjiku shogi (with serious differences, of course).

💡📝Hafsteinn Kjartansson wrote on Sat, Jan 15, 2011 03:22 PM UTC:

I like the approaching idea! And I wasn't aware of the builder being like the fire demon...

typhoon wrote on Tue, Jan 25, 2011 05:44 PM UTC:Good ★★★★

One question about the position(white: King g1, Builder d5; black: King e8,
Rook a6, Bishop d7). You say Kd8 is the only move, but Re6 is an
alternative, blocking the builder. I just want to make sure, that I got the
rules right.

tÂ¥ph00n

💡📝Hafsteinn Kjartansson wrote on Sat, Jun 11, 2011 10:52 PM UTC:

No. Remember: The builder changes the opponents pieces to your pieces. The builder could still move adjacent to the bishop, exchanging it for your bishop, checking the king.

Ben Reiniger wrote on Sun, Jun 12, 2011 01:37 AM UTC:

First, if in the position the white builder were at d4 instead, then that rook move would remove the check, right?

I agree tha the builder is too strong; at least for a start it would make sense to disallow the builder trying to swap out the king.  (After all, you could never successfully switch them!)  It would still have the awesome power of resurrecting your pieces, plus capture by adjacency, but no direct checking power.

💡📝Hafsteinn Kjartansson wrote on Sun, Jun 12, 2011 03:47 PM UTC:

First, if the builder was at d4 the king wouldn't be in check.

Your idea of the builder not being able to check is interesting and would help this piece to become 'even', so to say. The movement seems a bit strong to, I already added a suggestion on the main page.

💡📝Hafsteinn Kjartansson wrote on Sun, Jun 12, 2011 03:58 PM UTC:

To make it clear, in the situation above the builder must be positioned so that in one move it can become adjacent to the king, in order for it to be in check. No move other than Kd8 is possible in order to get out of check. Any attempt to block the builder won't work because:

a) if the rook tried to block the builder, it could still switch the black bishop for a white, checking the king, and

b) if the bishop moved at all, the builder would simply take the king, thus any attempt to move the bishop would be illegal.

This makes the builder way to powerful. An interesting variant would be to have an anti-king instead of a king.

Another thing I've been thinking about is what happens if a piece moves adjacent to a builder? Is that suicide or does nothing happen at all? The latter would make it impossible for a builder to capture another builder, is that good or is that bad?

Ben Reiniger wrote on Mon, Jun 13, 2011 12:48 AM UTC:

Oh, I see. I wasn't thinking very well: moving adjacent to the bishop will give check, but it's not check yet. But now I think I agree with the previous comment, that black has the response Re6, which blocks this check (it allows the subsequent move 'builder to d6' converting both black pieces and giving checkmate (?) ). By the way, do you have a suggested notation for the builders?

💡📝Hafsteinn Kjartansson wrote on Mon, Jun 13, 2011 12:56 PM UTC:

Moving the rook is a clever move, as it prevents mate. The king would still be checked, though. Double-checked. A more clever move is the one listed on the main page, I think. The reason: You prevent check on the next move and you prevent mate. I don't know, but I think it is more clever than Re6.

Anyway, the situation on the main page was just to show how builders take and how they mate/check.

One possible notation for the builder: The Builder (Bu or I), builder take: Id5-a5*(b)Ra6->(w)Ra6. The builder (I) on d5 moves to a5 and takes a (black) rook on a6, switching it to (->) a (white) rook on a6. For the situation in which the black rook moves to e6, the builder does this: Id5-d6*(b)Bd7 -> (w)Bd7+ &*(b)Re6 -> (w)Re6+. This means that the builder on d5 moves to d6 (Id5-d6) and kills (*) the (black) bishop on d7 switching it (->) for a (white) bishop on d7, checking, AND (&) it kills the (black) rook on e6, switching it for a (white) rook on e6, checking.

Pictures:

tÂ¥ph00n wrote on Thu, Jun 16, 2011 10:20 AM UTC:

Thanks for clarification Hafsteinn. I just was a bit confused, because you wrote Kd8 was the only move ;)

14 comments displayed

~~Earlier~~ ⇧Reverse Order⇩ ~~Later~~

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.