Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

~~Earlier~~ ⇧Reverse Order⇩ ~~Later~~

Grand Jang Gi. A large variant of Jang Gi. (13x12, Cells: 156) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]

🕸Fergus Duniho wrote on Mon, Jan 5, 2009 04:42 PM UTC:

If you're going to describe the rules with reference to Jang Gi, you should at the very least provide a link to Jang Gi. Ideally, you should describe the rules fully, so that someone who has never heard of Jang Gi can take a printout of this page and know from it alone how to play this game.

💡📝John Smith wrote on Tue, Jan 6, 2009 05:13 AM UTC:

I have provided a link. I do not think that I need to explain the rules fully, as people can look at the Jang Gi page, and because it should be intuitive with reference to the pieces that I have already explained.

Charles Gilman wrote on Wed, Jan 7, 2009 08:21 AM UTC:Good ★★★★

Most of the pieces moving '...as the Jang Gi...' piece are fairly obvious from either the image - although it would be nice to reiterate each image just before the piece name - or analogue pieces in other directions. My first reaction, on seeing that pieces couldn't hop their own kind, was '...but Arrows can still capture first move.' They can indeed, but will they be able to escape the enemy camp before something captures them?

Young-Hyun Joo wrote on Mon, Jan 12, 2009 10:19 AM UTC:Poor ★

This game does't look like a Janggi variant, rather a Eurasian Chess variant. As a Korean having played Janggi since 7, I have general idea how pieces of Janggi should move: most pieces move along the linked 'road', except Ma(horse) and Sang(elephant). Even those pieces (Ma & Sang) are only allowed to 'jump' off the road (diagonally) after one-cell dash along the road. A variant of Janggi should place some emphasis on the role of terrain. This game can be good, but IMHO have a poor name and ranked as such. Sorry.

💡📝John Smith wrote on Mon, Jan 12, 2009 12:45 PM UTC:

Ah, I understand. We Westerners do not have such an idea as we play on the squares of a board, not the intersections.

Charles Gilman wrote on Wed, Jan 14, 2009 07:24 AM UTC:

Ah, I suspect that John Smith hasn't been precise enough. I had no trouble inferring that a piece defined as moving orthogonally and then diagonally can be blocked along that route, but perhaps it would be better if it was stated explicitly in the text. That would also emphasise the difference from Eurasian, in which the Knight makes unblockable leaps. Combined with repeating piece images beside the descriptions this would be a major improvement to that part of the page.

Young-Hyun Joo wrote on Wed, Jan 14, 2009 10:19 AM UTC:

Umm... maybe my earlier comment was not precise enough; The reason I called this game not a Janggi variant is not in any way from the moves of Horse or Elephant, but Chariot and Cannon. For example, a Janggi Chariot CAN move diagonally if the board below permits it (e.g. inside fortresses). In other words, whether a Janggi Chariot (& Pawn,Cannon,King,Minister) can move diagonally or not is not the property of the piece, but of the board (connection). I think the board of Chess has little idea of connection. If a chessboard is all 4-connected, a Janggi Chariot is equivalent to a Rook on that board. However, on a 8-connected board the same Chariot is equivalent to a Queen. The board of this game has also little idea of connection just like that of Chess, even inside fortresses. So I think this game is more akin to Chess than to Janggi. I hope I made my points clearer this time.

💡📝John Smith wrote on Wed, Jan 14, 2009 11:25 PM UTC:

I thought you were talking about the plethora of pieces able to move diagonally. The reason I did not include special Fortress moves was that I couldn't figure out what moves to add to pieces, such as the Sage, as no piece moves diagonally in Jang Gi. By the way, I think you would like Storm the Ivory Tower.

💡📝John Smith wrote on Wed, Jan 21, 2009 12:12 AM UTC:

Perhaps you would also like Fanorona Chess. Charles: Camels, Elephants, and Horses can jump.

Charles Gilman wrote on Wed, Jan 21, 2009 07:30 AM UTC:

I concur with you on Storm the Ivory Tower. Given that the Fortress remains 3x3 the obvious rule would be that:
	orthogonal pieces can move diagonally one step to/from, or two straight through, the centre of the fortress (existing Jang Gi rule);
	diagonal pieces can move orthogonally one step to/from, or two straight through, the centre of the fortress (central orthogonals of Fortress).
	Compound pieces would of course be unaffected.