[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
Suffix Index to Man and Beast. Alphabetic list of suffixes used in the Man and Beast series.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Still looking for original established p-t 'Panda' referred to last comment, this is the useful accompanying suffix index now first noticed to attention. Think of Gilman's useful M&Bs as analogue to scientific latin classification in biology that few will occasion to use at all in favour of popular common name of pieces chosen with more discrimination. Another troubling exclusion is of two classes with members that ought to be considered in the top 100 all-time p-ts. They are Winther's 20 best Bifurcators and Knappen's 7 different Nightriders (one M&B does indicate ''Nachtmahr'' Quintessence in tail-end Notes). Is it because they are already well-named? In this week's revision or indexing, in fact found
Panda_appears_here.
Mixing geometries and nomenclature is disastrous for readership. To become textbook-ready, it is hard to imagine not separating out the different geometries eventually. Some can be dropped of the six or seven. (Actually in a complication, one glaringly missing, Triangles, could be added totally separately of course.) Hex-prism has only few extreme examples of cvs within CVPage, all Gilman's own, and would have no outside interest to play. So few examples mean hex prism and pentagonal are unwise to generalize about and could be omitted here for stand-alone study on cv by cv basis. See M&B01. In original chart at left Tetrahedral
Gilman may not be naming so extensively. Such uneven treatment warrants reduction to three. The only significant geometries would appear to be 2-d rectangles out of squares, 2-d hexagons, and 3-d cubic. And for comprehension they should not overlap in articles. The inessential geometries not those three become distractions; besides original never-before naming at the same time. To expect others to gain any understanding or words for piece-types to catch on, like incorporating these suffixes, the main three should have separate sections and treatment. Obviously, that is not going to be done here in CVPage, because Gilman is already devoted to his M&B Chapter names themselves, let alone reorganization. On account of Murray's style, one Grandmaster said 'History of Chess' is unusable or unreadable, peddling Eales' 'Chess, the History of a Game' as the readier desk reference. However, the inaccessibility of portions of Murray, as of Gilman M&Bxxs by analogy, does not invalidate them just because no one understands exactly what he is always talking about. The suffix index here brings clarity where it was lacking. As well, someone should take these suffixes from ' Alternator' to 'Weaver' and put one sample p-t each suffix on boards to see them in action.
Oddly enough I was thinking of switching the Pentagonal-specific pieces from pages 9 and 13 to page 20 as they do not have square or hex-radial Even Move Directions. The previous comment strengthens the case that I should. Other parts ofthe comment I will deal with once I have had time offline to write up a reply.
Your assessment that I neglect the Tetrahedral board certainly used to be true, but since reading Ezra Bradford's comments I have endeavoured to prioritise it over hex-prism. Man and Beast now includes, I believe, an exhaustive set of Tetrahedral pieces up to SOLL 120, built on their duality with cubic pieces. As regards overlapping, it is a fact that some pieces in more than one geometry are recognisably the same. For one thing square pieces automatically exist in most 3d geometries, and 2d hex ones in Tetrahderal and hex-prism. Therefore when I mention a 2d piece I describe how 32d geometries affect it, rather than reintroducing the same piece elsewhere. Where two oblique pieces, one cubic and one Tetrahedral, can both be defined as an orthogonal and a diagonal piece at right angles I have defined it on separate pages for each geometry as the 'sameness' is not as clear-cut. I do define pieces using root-3 diagonals in all geometries in one page, but that is because radial directions are so few. The one radial direction that is specific to hex-prism I hived off away from the corresponding pages for the more mainstream radials. I am not so much 'devoted' to the numbering of my current Man and Bseast series as resigned to it. There are certainly some pages that I would welcome splitting out into separate pages, but to do so would need a shift in the numbering of later pages. The way that post-your-own is designed does not make that an easy process. My page of modest variant is still indexed as 'Voyager', even though that game was abandoned long ago, and if the editors cannot fix that I don't see how they could enable me to restructure Man and Beast. As everyone will see from my latest update to page 13, complaints about my omitting pieces can bear fruit and are not just a rant into the wind. I have defined a generalised Lemurian compound that can apply to a far wider range of pieces than just the ones in the original game.
(A) Charles, I'll put some of my variant Rooks into cv games first half 2012; also Triangular pieces from ChessboardMath; and other p-ts around not yet M&Bxx-referenced. (B) I was thinking of book version, self-published or otherwise, with re-structuring, not expecting major reorganization here. Jaguaribe asked you about this once.
(C) How about a series using boards from CVs to illustrate each -suffix in
CVP? Take any one of them randomly: find an ''all'' geometries: -Coward. Honestly if I don't know what it is without digging, no one does but you, so half of M&Bxxs becomes your own personal notes. They accused Murray of inaccessibility too for style, and for using several languages french, italian and latin, and mixing time periods or cultures. Even though no one much reads 'HoC' any more, there is still 10 or 20 times the information actually in there of any other Chess book, be it history or play manual. Accurate facts and information too; I got the association of pieces to planets from early Murray chapter and changed them around.
Correction, it was only those Tetrahedral pieces that have duals on a 9x9x9 cubic board that I have covered up to SOLL 120. I can see several whose duals have largest coordinate 9 or more of which only a few have names. The 9:5:4, 9:7:2, 10:7:3, 11:6:5, 11:7:4, 12:7:5, and 13:7:6 all have pure-hex duals - the Suntrap, Gopher, Waxworker, Zemindar, Vacillator, Driberyl, and Gatherer. The 10:1:1, 10:3:3, 12:1:1, 12:5:5, 10:7:7, 14:1:1, and 14:3:3 leapers have duals that could be considered Tetrahedral forms of the Feaster, Broadwayman, Hamster, Upsetter, Whinger, Lounger, and Hobbler. These, however, are a relatively small sample of many other such pieces, even (in the case of the latter group) up to SOLL 120. I mention this to make amends for an ungrounded boast of mine.
Further analysis reveals the following unnamed pairs of even-SOLL cubic and odd-SOLL Tetrahedral pieces with odd SOLLS up to 80. I have decided not to go beyond that so as to avoid the blurring of dualities around Opossum/Ultimatum/Lumel. Pure hex means that I have used the name for use on a 2d hex board. By duality means that it follows from existing logic for equating cubic and Tetrahedral pieces. Spare means simply that the name has no pre-existing Tetrahedral use.
So should I try and persevere with naming all these, or would it be going over the top?
| Coordinates | SOLL of cubic piece | SOLL of Tetrahedral piece | Name | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 9:2:1 | 86 | 43 | Thirdmouse | spare |
| 9:3:2 | 94 | 47 | cf Tesselator | |
| 9:4:1 | 98 | 49 | Sceptic | spare |
| 10:1:1 | 102 | 51 | Feaster | by duality |
| 9:4:3 | 106 | 53 | Midwife | spare |
| 9:5:2 | 110 | 55 | cf Drudge | |
| 10:3:1 | 110 | 55 | cf Drudge | |
| 9:6:1 | 118 | 59 | Highwayman | spare |
| 10:3:3 | 118 | 59 | Broadwayman | by duality |
| 9:5:4 | 122 | 61 | Suntrap | pure hex |
| 10:5:1 | 126 | 63 | ||
| 11:2:1 | 126 | 63 | ||
| 9:7:2 | 134 | 67 | Gopher | pure hex |
| 10:5:3 | 134 | 67 | cf Guineapig, Gopher | |
| 11:3:2 | 134 | 67 | cf Guineapig, Gopher | |
| 11:4:1 | 138 | 69 | Gerbil | spare |
| 9:6:5 | 142 | 71 | ||
| 9:7:4 | 146 | 73 | cf Hamster | |
| 9:8:1 | 146 | 73 | cf Hamster | |
| 11:4:3 | 146 | 73 | cf Hamster | |
| 12:1:1 | 146 | 73 | Hamster | by duality |
| 10:7:1 | 150 | 75 | Petmouse | spare |
| 11:5:2 | 150 | 75 | cf Petmouse | |
| 9:8:3 | 154 | 77 | Dunnart | spare |
| 12:3:1 | 154 | 77 | cf Dunnart | |
| 10:7:3 | 158 | 79 | Waxworker | spare |
| 11:6:1 | 158 | 79 | Mede | spare |
Let's go through all the suffixes one at a time for Square (squares -> rectangles) geometry. First take '-Hound'. The suffix is to denote adding Bishop leg to Doubly-Bent Riders. There are not that many doubly-bent riders but enough to use specialized suffixes when adding natural components Bishop or Rook; and M&Bxxs or AofFxs define several more never yet in CVs. This -Hound is only for regular Bishop as alternative move for only the Double-bent riders. For example, Stiles' Fox is double-bender as Wazir, optional slant 45-d only as ferz or all the way to Bishop, then Wazir again; Fox has to do the two Wazirs at beginning and end. So if bi-compounding with regular Bishop, the piece-type is Foxhound instead of having to write out (Fox + Bishop). Wolfhound is counterpart also adding generic Bishop option. To Stiles' fancy, the piece-moves pre-compounded appear the shape of canine leg and manifest destiny Westerners came up with similar lookalike hog legg for revolver under the mattress.
Stiles calls Fox and Wolf and Rabbit traditional riders, but it may help to distinguish the first two as specific Sliders too. The distinction can be taken up later. Foxhound and Wolfhound are their compounds with Bishop, and Vixen and SheWolf with Rook. Vixen and SheFox would be the same piece-type (Fox + Rook). 'She-' is to be reserved prefix for Rook with any doubly-bent rider. Deservedly Betza notation was superceded by Gilman nomenclature the late aughts. These practical manageable suffixes every specialist should know at least square, cubic, and hexagonal. That covers -Hound and She-. Next -Hopper. Grasshopper of Pawn value must have a screen to leap radially and stops only at the next square capturing or not, and so -Hopper generalized accordingly means inclusive active and passive need for the screen. Instead if the screen required only actively like xiangqi Cannon, refer to canonised, or if only passively beatified. '-Hopper' is important and the other two can be just verbally qualified ''only capturing'' or ''only without capture.'' Problemists have had -Hoppers for a century. Equihopper along all radials must have the screen at midpoint of any move. Therefore, Equihopper can only travel an even number of squares. The p-t would benefit from larger than 8x8 and problemists just have never got around to that yet. [Other suffixed -Hoppers for follow-up.]
Recent indexes both alphabetical and suffix start to organize a morass. Continuing every Square-Suffix first by 2013, still on '-Hopper', another problemist one is Contragrasshopper. Grasshopper cannot move the radial direction a piece is adjacent, but Contragrasshopper requires it. Both are non-divergent, and Contragrasshopper is stronger piece-type. Like Cannon their capture mode is displacement. Where Grasshopper is high pawn range, about 2.0 and so equal to Rococo pawn or QuadraPawn (the latter not formal Gilmanese), Contragrasshopper is more like 4.0, become a true piece no longer Pawn. Is Long Leaper a hopper? Of course, in capture mode, be it non-displacement. Of Ultima, Rococo and Fugue, Long Leaper M&Bxxs omit so far, because there is no need for renaming, but LL would belong here with the Hoppers. T.R. Dawson among 5350 fairies has many Contragrasshopper examples, one of the top 20 p-ts among problemists.
[ongoing coverages so far: -Hound, She-, -Hopper; next -Lady, -Guide.]
Certainly the Grasshopper can move in a direction in which a piece is adjacent, it is just that it has to move exactly two steps in that direction. It is true that the Contragrasshopper too can make that move, and can also make longer moves in the same circumstances which the Grasshopper cannot. It is also true that the Grasshopper is alwys restricted to how far it can go - three steps in directions in which the nearest piece is two steps away, four steps where it is three away, et cetera. The Contragrasshopper, however, cannot move at all in directions in which the nearest piece is not adjacent. This makes it seem to me that the pieces are similar in strength.
Grasshopper and Contragrasshopper are certainly similar, and have the same Betza mobility (3.2 with magic number = .7, which would suggest a value around 1.5 pawns). Since both will lose value rapidly as the board empties, I suspect their practical worth will usually just be a question of what you can trade them for. The Grasshopper (but probably not the Contragrasshopper) is very good at threatening undeveloped enemy pieces behind a pawn wall; replacing ANY of white's backrow pieces with a Grasshopper in an otherwise FIDE game allows a fork on turn 1. But without such a favorable opening (for example, if you start the pawns on ranks 3 and 6), I'm skeptical whether they are even as good as a Wazir or Ferz.
[See below, maybe it should be Contragrasshopper 5.0 and Grasshopper 2.5] M&B06 text and Friedlander applet for Grasshopper Chess make clear that Grasshopper moves over adjacency of course. Thanks for correction. Actually Grasshopper leads off Falcon patent text written 16 yrs ago, Falcon. [Knappen notes Gazelle there too recently as synonym for Camel in a Turkish Great Chess -- not a Hopper.] Of this hopper class, Long Leaper also leaps to capture over adjacent opponent, somewhat unintuitively.
Important: not to omit from Hoppers is description the same M&B06 Duniho-named Arrow, which is the same as Dawson-named and invented year 1912 Vao, which is the same as Fourriere-named Canon. I prefer and will continue using ''Canon'' for the hopper piece-type used in Jacks & Witches. This Arrow or Vao or Canon, all the same meaning, is the diagonal equivalent of Cannon. It apparently takes 900 years to get from Cannon, problemist's Pao, to Canon. 100 years ago 1912 saw invention of several other Dawson fairy pieces with Grasshopper and Canon/Vao, both hoppers. ______________________________________________________ As for values, Grasshopper versus Contragrasshopper, one approach is to use informal quick trade-off method by putting them in a C.D.A. imaginatively. Which would you rather have, a row of 8 Gs or 8 CGs? In back rank CG excels and in front rank G excels. Instead of that, the reason behind estimates 4.0 and 2.0 is normal line-up paired back-rank substitutes for like Bishops or Knights either 2 CGs or 2 Gs. Like Cannon in Xiangqi, as Jeremy says, both their values go down as pieces exit. This two-at-a-time back-rank is how 75% CVs introduce new pieces. Not all, just look at Boyer's Grasshopper Chess itself. But that way, staying behind a row of normal Pawns and moving across ranks 1, 2, 3, Contragrasshopper looks pretty effective, unable to be threatened in return very well. Please however continued no CVs using Contragrasshopper is the preferred method of analysis. Let's see, a Contragrasshopper centralized to one of the four d4/5//e/4/5, fully screened, attacks Queen-style 19 squares (Queen's maximum of 27 there minus the 8 adjacent screens). By contrast, Rook threatens only the 14 from any central four, and Grasshopper max is 8 threats once specific screens set. The ratio suggested by those is 5:2, but 4.0 to 2.0-2.5 seems about right for Grasshopper mobility compensation consideration, Charles stresses. Fact is Grasshopper worth gets to about piece range too, would you rather have a Grasshopper or a 2.5-point Camel most circumstances?
Looking only at the best-case mobility of a piece can be hugely misleading, especially when that best case is highly dependent on the exact positions of other pieces. My piece threatens every square on the board, instantly and automatically winning the game...provided that I have 8 pawns all positioned on my seventh rank. Clearly it is stronger than your entire army! You suggest that CG is very good behind a pawn--but as soon as that pawn moves one space forward, the CG is stranded with no moves at all! It cannot even follow the pawn up to regain its lost mobility. A G behind a pawn can only move to the space directly in front of the pawn, but at least it retains that ability as the pawn advances, and can threaten any piece that tries to stand in the pawn's way. You talk about imagining substituting a G or CG for a FIDE piece as if it were some great revelation, but despite your protestations, merely imagining this scenario for a few moments does not magically allow you to accurately determine a piece's value. At least, it does not allow ME to do so, and clearly it does not allow you to produce predictions that are consistent with any accepted method of estimation, nor am I aware of any instances so far in which your unorthodox predictions have been proven true by empirical study. The only actual evidence you have presented so far is an analysis of best-case mobility--which, at 19 squares, should (if it were meaningful) put its value at 1.35 Rooks, higher than either of the two different values you have already guessed! As far as I can tell, your numbers are based on nothing but intuition, and your intuition isn't even consistent. As for me, I'd happily take the Camel in preference to either of these pieces in most positions. By the way, George, your posts would be much more readable if you used an occasional paragraph break.
[Hey, play a game of 8 Camels, half one binding half the other, behind regular Pawns and 8 CG behind regular Pawns! No comparison, probably against G too!] Thanks for input, as piece-values are neglected in favour of designing cvs and defining types. Jeremy's are good if obvious points. What do we have now Grasshopper versus Contragrasshopper? 2.5 and 4.0 were the second try, now estimate in general 2.5-3.0 and 4.0-4.5. They are both measureably over convenient benchmark Camel most embodiments. CG and G using all Queen lines as they do are likely still underestimated those ranges most CVs possible to include them (fortunately CG as yet appears in none).
Not only there is nothing wrong with progressive recalibration, it is the only sound approach, because there is no one exclusive piece-value method that can work. There are conflicting and reinforcing methodologies -- until settling on one rules-set and initial position for computer tests. As Jorg Knappen recently says, the only way to get refinements down to +/- 0.1 is to generate play with at least 20 or 50 game scores w/wo computer. Muller somewhat mis-leads that is a 10-minute process, because designers can re-invent rules-set variations and piece mixes at one a minute and the differing CVs can never be overtaken by single established values per p-t. Piece-values have effects from the array and from compatibility with other pieces and from specific rules. Gilman has documented so far about 3000 p-ts here in M&Bxxs and for this subtopic, singled out are two of them, G and CG. Among the other 9,000,000 pairs at least 10% might be interesting to consider one to one. That is still another 900,000 to look at by trial and error and selected methodologies. The only way would seem to be one by one, as pair, within 100s of possible rules-sets each piece-pair to compare by educated guesses, if one will, from growing experience. Just because proficiency at it is difficult or frustrating does not mean CV after CV, as well as M&Bxxs, should always omit serious attempt at piece-values.
I did about 30 of these design analyses 8 yrs. ago, Jacks&Witches having all piece values and intend to build on them. The exchange gradient leads to the Move Equation, and the number of moves per game has some empirical testing in Game Courier as well as Brainking.
As has been repeatedly pointed out, CGs directly behind a pawn wall is a uniquely favorable starting position; those CGs have very high POSITIONAL value, but even if they win (which I'm not confident they would) that proves nothing about their MATERIAL value. Start those pawns on rank 3 instead of rank 2 and which side do you think will win? And I can't actually perform your test, since you've removed both kings from the board and haven't stated a new win condition. Which makes me pretty confident that you haven't actually tried this test either, since that issue would be pretty hard to miss if you actually sat down and played. So even if this were a fair test (which it's not), it's not a test that has actually been performed, so to say that the CG is 'measurably' above Camel is just a bald-faced lie. You have yet to measure anything. How about this? Give each side 8 pawns, a king, and either 6 camels or 6 contragrasshoppers. Put the kings on their usual starting squares, and distribute the rest of each side's pieces RANDOMLY throughout their half of the board (I guess we'll forbid pawns on the first rank just so we don't have to pick a special initial-move rule). I won't even require that the camels are split between different colors. Pawns promote to queen. If a king starts in check, his side gets the first move, otherwise pick randomly. I'm sure each side will win some possible random positions. I'm reasonably confident the camels would win the clear majority--but I haven't tried it, so I could be wrong! (I suppose I really should look into getting some software to run computer tests like Muller has been doing...)
Somewhat similar to a dozen other piece-value discussions for ten years, these are mostly just demonstrations that take a minute involving one unpopular piece-type. Namely now Camel, that is among Gilman's 3000 p-ts in M&B03 on Ungulates. Ask any player, they all detest Camel. It is become a joke when a CVer inserts a Camel. However, Camel is good benchmark in that back in the 1990s, Centennial Chess at its complete table of values here within CVP puts Camel at 2.5. Stable clunky Camel stays about that number any CV, whereas interesting p-ts including all hoppers are more variable both between cvs and over a game score. After Centennial, henceforth any type called a ''piece'' and no longer Pawn, or Pawn-range weakened piece, is assumed to be worth more than lowly Camel. Nothing said denigrates that creative p-ts only somewhat more valuable, say in range 3.0 to 6.0, are absolutely the most fascinating of all conceived by man, generally speaking. Are all established Hoppers, excluding Cannon Pawns, pieces by value consideration? It appears so with the upgrading now of G and CG. Thinking of G as Pawn-value-range was erroneous brought on by Boyer's 50-year-old cv with the eight of them. It is not that engrossing whether in some embodiments, Camel and Grasshopper approximately overlap around 2.5. For one reason, they are an unnatural set-off because of both their sensitivity to array position, mentioned several times, the Camel because of its three-reach leap. For some follow-up anyway, what about mating potential of Camel, Grasshopper and ContraGrasshopper, a.k.a. Contrahopper? How many more than one of them does it take with just the King to mate lone King? One of 20 or 40 good useful tests as to p-value, that one test usually turns up a measureable difference in needed comparisons. No test should be absolutely conclusive. The suffix index p-t category being related is '-Hopper', and the above adds high-value Cannon Pawn, a hopper both actively and passively around 2.0-2.2 points, to all these M&Bxxs Hoppers, as yet omitted chapters and indexes. See Rococo for Cannon Pawn.
{*****Bonus question: What planet are you standing on watching a transit of Mars?*****} Add a few Grasshopper-styles. Problemists in their chief era 1900-1960 have others besides Equihopper but they are not easily locatable. Weaker Grasshopper I described in error unable to leap adjacently is now ROACH. Regular Grasshopper strengthened to stop either one or two beyond the one screen is PLAGUE. Rook passively and full Hopper ('full' means regardless where the screen is) orthogonally is already Cannon for 1000 years. So add for one related example, Queen passively and ContraGrasshopper actively as CICADA.
Don't use general ''Butterfly'' because each individual species will be needed. Then MONARCH ButterFLY can be sequential piece-type, first as Commoner then as ContraGrasshopper able but not required to capture once or twice at each required leg end. BLACK SWALLOWTAIL, divergent but not sequential, is Rook passively like Cannon, and actively contingently Grasshopper if the capture square is dark and ContraHopper if the capture square is light.
The list of new Grasshoppers is not exhaustive of course, but only inchoate or inexhaustible actually. A DOUBLE-SCREEN GRASSHOPPER-Plex, able to capture not by displacement but by adjacency up to four units all 8 directions from its chosen arrival square past the two required screens is WINDSHIELD WIPER. Any or all the above can be made bifurcating too upon encountering second screen. Since bifurcators number over 50, variously Colliding, Bouncing etc., that is a lot more piece-types than accountable.
________________________________________________________
How many ContraGrasshoppers are required to give mate? Two work in set-up like: White CG h1, CG h2, King f8; Black King h8. But is that attainable? Or instead does it take three ContraHoppers, or four ContraHoppers?
Relatedly the problem How_Many_Mets? was followed by unresolved yet Rejoinder.
xxx
Two old controversies here in CVPage are not resolved after a decade, see below, having to do with Makruk and let's say Eurasia. {Test question: What planet are you standing on watching a transit of Mars?} It is incredible it's hard to tell after up to 1000 years, are 3 or 4 necessary? Another controversy here too: Euro-centrism. The link to left is tangential, and the other two comments linked already yesterday are the ones posing the 3 versus 4 mate problem in Thai Chess/Makruk, as well of course as the Gralla article itself. Within move-turn rules and not just set up, how many Mets? Now 'K a3, M b2, M c2, M c3; Black King a1' is mate, but is it fairly attainable? Same for Grasshopper and for ContraGrasshopper after 100 years in their separate schemes, and also many, many imaginary piece-types hardly studied yet. It's one thing to define within a personalized rules set, it's another thing to understand. For G and CG, if 2 are dubious without a disabled opponent, what of 3? If not that either, then 4? Let some team of programmers try to solve it. Further, is there some respectable piece-type, not Pawn, of consequence requiring so many as specific 5 units to mate?
This Suffix review goes on hold while moving to Sovereign Piece-type Values for now. Gilman's material would be more accessible as 30 CVs not 300. Charles won't do the way Ralph Betza clearly repeatedly did, singling out one CV, Different Armies, from among his particular 150 cv write-ups. Any good designer can add one more quality cv but how to get more selective for play, in consideraton to all? Fortunately Gilman's knowledge of CVs surpasses or equals all the experts Paulowich, Jorg Knappen, myself, Doug Chathan, Christine Bagley-Jones, several others. The field is become important enough that these summaries can be refined, and Gilman is already doing some winnowing himself. It looks like Man & Beasts xxs, including this index, will be more significant than any one, two, or three Gilman CVs. M&Bxxs being unbeatable in completeness and their turgidity is alleviated by all the new indexes or glossaries. In both CV and reference, all along mixing themes with the rules-sets and definitions and nomenclature (itself a theme) makes Gilman's work difficult ''reads.'' At once they are full of information unavailable elsewhere and inaccessible to but a few with inclination or time. In process, if hypothetically given the chance, which individual CV would Charles like to see played by Nakamura, Carlsen, and Anand? Expect he still will not even address such commmonsense question, whereas Ralph would answer immediately: Chess Different Armies!
haha George, your a funny guy :) I'm am surely not an expert, and do not deserve to go in your little list there. Probably my best game is 'Sky', but, i'm more into fairy pieces than designing chess variants, but thanks anyway.
Very well, as you ask, Nearlydouble Chess. That's the variant of mine that I would single out as having the best chance of catching on if the site had a wider following, and would be readiest to suggest playing a game with someone else with a general interest in Chess. It uses a square board and two FIDE (save for some modest enhancement to short-range moves) sets that do not need distinguishing.
Thanks, it has immediate effect in that both AltOrth Hex and NearlyDouble are next in line, with couple other designers' cvs, at NextChess threads, where I first asked your judgement. NearlyDouble becomes inventor-nominated the way Not Particularly New is self-nominated by Peter Aronson. But I'll probably do 5 or 10 more suffixes first here before placing those two with explanation in the top 20 non-classical CVs Track I. AltOrth Hex is going in pretty high as the only so far different geometry. Track I's are those meant for replacement of the several f.i.d.e types from Shatranj to OrthoChess to F.R.C.
To be answered, the question two months ago, What planet are you standing on watching a transit of Mars? There are
CVers authoring over 30 games who have never invented a single new p-t. It may not be necessary. Contrariwise, Gilman has maybe 500 new p-t invented and named, mostly obscure, among 1000 or 2000 defined p-ts in M&Bxxs. Finally, this Suffix index and the alphabetical indexes begin some accessibility. _______________________________________
The two extended topics being developed year 2012 in parallel are Tables of Sovereign Values and Suffix Index. Sovereign Values have their own thread(s) and will become numerical over 1000 piece-types easily. The Gilman-approved Suffix Index here left off with completing '-Hopper'. Working up and down from the middle for Square geometry only, a next one to define is '-Guide'. '-Guide' is closely related to '-Dueller' and to Scout. 'Guide' is linked in the paragraph before one beginning ''Crooked pieces...'' in the Vice Squad. These three suffixes interweave: Guide, Scout and Dueller. Scout is self-explanatory and rudimentary to CVers by Boyscout and Girlscout ways of moving. -Dueller alternates between an oblique leaper and its dual, moving outwardly and reversing direction of turn each time, for example Knight and Camel in successive right angle turns, able to move 1, 2, 3, or more legs, therefore a.k.a. besides that simple longhand description, Knight-Dueller. So (K)night-Dueller is counterpart to Betzan Crooked Bishop using Knight then Camel etc. instead of alternating Ferz directions. Gilman would have to explain what significance Guide as suffix has, where Dueller seems sufficient. It appears the same Knight-Dueller that can also move as a Ferz instead is one example of a Guide-style Rider using the suffix. It may give the awkward p-t some maneuverability by added optional one-step. Guide just seems to mean that, the same basic Dueller (all the others less interesting than NightDueller switching N and Camel) moving as either Ferz or Wazir too. Suffice, no pun intended, to say that both Dueller and -Guide alternate between the oblique leaper and its dual, and -Guide has additional movement option. Rose of Betza is similar but distinct from Night-Dueller and from ''Cardi-Guide'' of Gilman. Regular Knight as like Boyscout, or Crooked Bishop, is obvious Knight-Scout or NightScout, potentially useful p-t called in 'Nachtmahr' STRAIGHT WIDE CROOKED NIGHTRIDER, become another CV re-invention now, at least this case only a few years after the fact.
Dueller as nomenclature is more important than Guide, because Guide can be described in words qualifying any Dueller or Scout. Gilman distinguishes NightDueller and CamelDueller and it may be possible to combine the p/ts. If staying with NightDueller only, on 8x8 a NightDueller at e1 may move e1-f3-c4-d6-a7. Or ND may stop at any of those intermediate squares. Or e1-g2-f5-h6 is a move, including the intermediacies. Or e1-d3-a2 all stops. Or e1-c2-d5-b6. Or finally e1-d3-g4-f6. Fifteen squares reachable are on a par with Rook and Falcon/Bison major fundamental chess units. NightDueller is new p/t not in any CV, just put into M&B09 Might Like a Rose. What about a Different Armies of NightDuellers against CamelDuellers on 10x10? How much better would that be than Great Herd? /// An astronomer answered immediately ''Vesta works.'' Since you cannot stand on Jupiter or Saturn, answers Neptune and Uranus are right, to watch the object pass over the Sun in broad daylight, like Venus from Earth in two months. Vesta -- On Vesta or Dawn, there now, you can watch a transit of Mars in a few years.
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.