Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
Here's a link Ben gave me in an email a while ago, which includes illustrations of how piece types move. Hope it helps.
💡📝Ben Reiniger wrote on Sun, Aug 25 03:38 PM UTC:Testing an interactive diagram (huge thanks to HaruN Y for doing most of the work on a Sphinx Chess diagram):
The first problem to solve is that the square coloring doesn't alternate properly. If there's a way to set colors more manually, I'll do that. I think the coloring is important to see the bishop bindings and rook's alternation, so I'm not willing to just leave it as is. I can't put just one hole between little boards, or the knights will be afforded an incorrect move. I could put three holes between little boards, but that'll have quite a bit too much empty space (can you thin specific ranks+columns?).
Other known issues: Ideally I could override the coordinates, but if not it'll be fine, I just won't use it as the main setup diagram. The knight is still a Centauri, none of the pieces have their triagonal or quadragonal components yet, and obviously the layout isn't set yet; I expect I can fix those once the layout is settled.
If I can fix up those issues (and any others that arise), I'll include it on the page, along with a separate game (maybe this should be a separate page) that features the raw orthogonal/diagonal/triagonal/quadragonal sliders, just to help demonstrate.
💡📝Ben Reiniger wrote on Sun, Sep 1 06:32 PM UTC in reply to Ben Reiniger from Sun Aug 25 03:38 PM:@HGMuller
The first problem to solve is that the square coloring doesn't alternate properly. If there's a way to set colors more manually, I'll do that. I think the coloring is important to see the bishop bindings and rook's alternation, so I'm not willing to just leave it as is. I can't put just one hole between little boards, or the knights will be afforded an incorrect move. I could put three holes between little boards, but that'll have quite a bit too much empty space (can you thin specific ranks+columns?).
Skimming the documentation page for the interactive diagram, I think I can do this, but just by creating a background image and setting the background parameter (keeping two spaces between boards)? That's a little obnoxious, and something like Game Courier's method for specifying custom coloring patterns would be nice, but also not a big deal.
Ideally I could override the coordinates
This doesn't seem possible besides setting a starting rank number, but I can suppress coordinates altogether. A new parameter with comma-separated rank/file names would be really nice.
H. G. Muller wrote on Mon, Sep 2 06:00 AM UTC in reply to Ben Reiniger from Sun Sep 1 06:32 PM:You can embed a JavaScript function xxxShade(x,y) on the page, which returns a color (like '#ffc080'). (Where xxx is the value of the satellite parameter.) Which will then be used for the square with internal coordinates (x,y). (Where the lower-left corner is (0,0).)
The problem with coordinates is that these are not just for dressing up the image, but are used in notation. By allowing arbitrary coordinate labels it would be possible to define coordinates for which SAN can no longer be unambiguously parsed.
💡📝Ben Reiniger wrote on Wed, Sep 4 02:37 AM UTC in reply to H. G. Muller from Mon Sep 2 06:00 AM:Thanks! Colors look good, so the 2-square separation will work, and I've now entered the main "round" initial setup. Next up is adding the higher-dimensional moves! Done! Oh, and I notice that your diagram on the ID page has the Move Diagram with pieces on a non-central square: how do I do that?
At the rate you guys are going with these, I half-expect you'll be able to make a diagram for Chess on a Tesseract by the end of next year. :)
You can do 1-square seperation like this:
💡📝Ben Reiniger wrote on Fri, Sep 6 03:01 PM UTC in reply to HaruN Y from 02:48 PM:I have no idea how that XBetza is accomplishing this, having just last week learned enough to understand the original version, but yes, the knight moves look correct! (You've kept the rook and bishop as 1- and 2-d, while in this game they pick up the 3- and 4-d slides respectively; and the pawns in this game don't get diagonal captures forward-forward or forward-backward. But I assume that wasn't the point.)
BTW, I updated my last comment, and the diagram should be fully functional. I just want to know how to put the pieces somewhere other than the center of the Move Diagram, and I'll put (probably an updated 1-space sep) diagram into the page. (Also, since it can't have the right coordinates, I'll be keeping the current setup diagram in the page.)
I played against the ID's AI. I didn't give myself very long per move, but it trounced me pretty thoroughly. I wouldn't be too surprised if the game turned out to be extremely tactical rather than strategic: everything is so close!
10 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.
In TessChess it's nice that there are mating positions that exist for just K & 2 non-Q pieces vs. lone K (so far I've spotted them for K & 2Rs vs. K, K & 2Bs vs. K, K & R & B vs. K and K & B & N vs. K, but mate with K & R & N [or K & 2Ns] vs. K seems impossible even with help), though it would seem at first impression that these are not forcible or 'basic' mates. In this way it's similar to the classic Raumschach, which is merely a 3D variant (as opposed to 4D). It's also similar in that K & Q vs. lone K is a 'basic' mate here, which is desirable, if not expected, in a variant meant to be not far from standard chess. As in most, if not all, 3 or 4D variants, it's the case that a king & pawn doesn't win as often vs. lone king as in standard chess.
In spite of the apparent strength of the the B & R in TessChess, compared to their counterparts in standard chess, in the setup position IMHO the 2 Ns remain as 'minor' pieces, which might be later exchanged on relatively even terms in some instances for a low number of pawns, useful both for making the game potentially more interesting, and practically, in that some menacing pawns might be dealt with in a way that may otherwise be almost always far too costly (say in an endgame or middlegame race situation involving connected passed pawns). Speaking of trades, originally I estimated that in TessChess a B+R+P might be worth a Q in some cases, but upon reflection I suppose it would almost always be preferable to have the Q.
I would rank what TessChess is to 4D chess as no worse than what Raumschach is to 3D chess, in terms of overall merit.
[edit: My tentative estimates for the relative piece values in TessChess are: P=1, N=3.4, B=5.6, R=7.4, Q=14 and a K has a fighting value of 10 (noting it can't be traded.]