Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

I just made a Mini-POM (Mini-Pillars of Medusa) on a 9x9 board (as compared
to the 121 (11 x 11) board of the original game.  Mini-POM retains the
Medusa and the Morph pieces, but does not include the Great Chess Pieces.

A link to the pre-set is below.  Rules can be accessed by the rules-link
at the pre-set.  As a note to those not familiar with Pillars of Medusa,
the Medusa piece freezes adjacent enemy pieces.  The Morph can change into
a Morph-version of what it captures.

/play/pbm/play.php?game%3DMini-POM+%28Mini+Pillars+of+Medusa%29%26settings%3DMini-POM

I recently tried this game with an alternate set-up pattern.

All the Swords are moved to the fourth rank.  The other pieces are
arranged left to right the same for both players. In other words, the
Serpent is to each players' right of their King, etc.

This offers an interesting opening game with only three rank between the
Swords to maneuver. This also shortens their distance to the promotion
rank.  With the available space behind the line of Swords, the player is
able to re-position power pieces with ease and increasing the depth of
play with the possible variety of introduction to the field.

An example of a powerful opening: advance Sword on 'f' file then slide
left-hand Advisor to its previous position.  This puts some serious
flanking pressure on the opponent early in the game.

Some might complain about the un-protected Swords of this set-up.  But
they can easily be defended with the advancement of the Queen or Serpent,
or by their simple development during the opening.  In fact, forcing an
opponent to defend these flanks can be a tactic to tie up one or both of
the major power pieces early in the game.

I am not advocating that this particular set-up replace the current.  Just
that it offers another interesting form of play with this game.

Larry: Thanks for sharing the idea regarding placing all the Swords[pawns]
on the fourth rank.  Your reasoning, which I quote in part, is good:
'...the player is able to re-position power pieces with ease and
increasing the depth of play with the possible variety of introduction to
the field.'  

In the original POM most can pieces can enter the field quickly by leaping
over the second rank pawns, or moving diagonally when one moves forward. 
As in chess, the rooks are the slow guys.

Pawns on the 4th ranks would be subject to a faster Medusa attack by the
opponent.  Anyway, your idea sounds like it is worth a try.

Another 'try' lies between your idea and the original.  It would be to
place all swords (pawns) on the third rank, put the Medusa and Morph on E2
and G2 (to keep them central), and to put the Pillars at A2 and K2. 
Possible then remove one or two ranks from the board to put the armies
closer.

As a development note: Pillars of Medusa was my very first chess variant,
and at the time it was just for a novel I was working on... in the novel a
mind-reading queen plays POM against the hero.  His pieces have, within
them, the names of his friends (who are prisoners of the queen).  When he
loses a piece the queen reveals the name inside, and has that person
executed.  Not a fun way to have to play a game.

I've given more thought to Larry's suggestion of POM (original 11 x 11
game) having pawns on the fourth rank and Serpents on the right-hand side
of each King. It does seem like it could be a very different game with the
'behind the pawns' manuevers. If anyone is interested in playing that
variation I can quickly adjust the pre-set to create a 'Pillars of
Medusa, L.L. Smith Setup.'  Or, if Mr. Smith wants to make such a
pre-set, I have no objection.  I must admit that I do not like the green
color pieces, and I wonder if I was on strong cold-medication at the time
I made them.  On the plus side, that piece-set has morph-equivalents for
all pieces, and thus, despite the color, are preferable to the alternate
Grand/Great Set pieces (fot this game, that is... certainly not for others).  

I just had this idea, which would make for quite a game, but holding zones
would need added to the pre-set.  The idea is this: (1) Use the L.L. Smith
Setup.  (2) Play the game Shogi-style.  Captured pieces change color and
you can drop them.  Now that, I think would be a very dynamic game.  A
Medusa in-hand, would be very dangerous.  If Mr. Smith does  not mind, I
think I'd like to make this game and, of course, give him credit for the
setup concept.

This game with drops would be quite intense.

May I suggest that since the Swords are not bound to a file that the Shogi
pawn restriction of introduction should not apply. Though the placing of
the opposing King in checkmate might, but would not be that necessary with
the potential of all those other pieces making such a threat. And of
course, the restriction of placing a Sword on the far rank should also be
considered.

This is not necessary, but a restriction of drops on the four far ranks
might be considered.  This would give each player some area in which to
build a defense, and hopefully counter-act the introduction of some of
these power pieces.

If this latter rule is applied, then the restriction on the Sword
checkmating the King need not be in force.

So, the drop rule might be summed up as placement on any vacant cell of
the first seven ranks.  I like this.  Short and sweet.

I have been considering the dynamic of the Morph with drops.

Of course, it should be re-introduced as the simple Morph.  But what of
the pieces which it has absorb?

These pieces should be considered removed from play.  This will make the
Morph a power piece in a drop game as it will actually eliminate pieces
from the field.

This will add a unique dimension which will distinguish this game from
Shogi.

Jeremy: That is a fair question.  The answer is 'Yes, Medusas can
capture each other.'  They cannot freeze each other.

The following, somewhat related question, was asked long ago is included
in the rules.  

'Why can’t one Medusa turn another to stone?'

Answer: Game testing indicated that Medusa immunity (from each other’s
stares) provided for a much better game than would result from the
Medusa’s turning each other to stone. Also, from a mythological stand
point, Medusa had two sisters… they saw each other without turning to
stone (mythological speaking, of course).

Apparently I owe Gary apologies again. I, of course [ ;-) ], meant mini-PoM.
Joe :-)

Pillars Of Medusa is largely based on Turkish Great Chess (circa 1797), and so, is not very imaginative, on my part. I was, however impressed with Turkish Great Chess and I needed a chess-like game for a sci-fi novel I was working on. So I added a Medusa and a Morph and played around with piece-names only for the sake of the novel (I did not know there was a CV web-site).

To see how POM plays I highly recommend the strong Zillions game version created by software engineer Jason Jakupca in January of 2004 (after he and I played a few games of POM face-to-face).

I had the pleasure of watching two strong chess players play POM over-the-board [on my homemade set] while a crowd gathered around. One player was from Russia, the other from Venezuela - so the game had the feeling of some important championship. The crowd and players all seemed to be quite impressed with the game. Mainly Medusa play... that was the real excitement.

It has been my experience that 'a game where pawns simply get picked-off' does not happen.

Often good Medusa play will decide the game. The Medusa is not to be underestimated. I believe Tony Q. missed a win against me in my first POM game here (at CV) by missing a strong Medusa move.

Again, to get a good idea of game play, I highly recommend playing against Jason's Zillions application. I think you will find it to be a fun and challenging game... and that you may have a hard time beating the Z engine.

Well fatuous is an adjective meaning 'foolish and idiotic.' I believe that the insult is simply not true. Here is why:

First-time players of POM often did under estimate the Medusa. So such a friendly comment is not at all fatuous. It would be like telling a newcomer to chess, watch out for the Knight forks... there is nothing fatuous about such sound advice.

I am putting my reply here, in the POM category because that is where Mr. Duke's remarks once again lead me.

Mr. Duke's comment is informative and tells of the Ralph Betza Medusa concept.

Duke mentions, quote: '... a 1997 pamphlet 'How To Play Medusa Chess', precisely the lead-in for 'PoM', Gary Gifford calls 'Medusa' an equivalent to 1960's Ultima Immobilizer(one-, two- or three-stepping) plus normal captures. Gifford must have been aware of Ultima if not web-based Chess Variants.'

That last statement is a logical assumption, but it is incorrect. I was not aware of Ultima and I was not aware of web-based Chess Variants. I had never heard of Ralph Betza at that point in time and I had no external inspiration for my Medusa or Morph. I thought of them on my own. It is possible for people to come up with the same or similar ideas. History is abundant with examples.

The original name for PoM was Medusa Chess. That was the name I used when I submitted it to CV. I submitted it at the request of a friend. His mention of CV to me was the first time I ever heard of the impressive site.

After submission and acceptance of my Medusa Chess I discovered that there was already an earlier Medusa Chess. So, I asked one of the editors to change the name of my version to Pillars of Medusa.

Why a Medusa piece? Because in a novel of mine, I have a Medusa [she is beautiful, but is based on the ugly one from mythology]. She is feared and the chess game on that world has a piece to represent the lady. This may seem fatuous to some, but it is true.

1) You say 'The Bishops are colourbound.' Reply: Yes, Bishops, by definition, typically are colorbound.

2) You say, 'The board is too big, discriminating the weak pieces.' Reply: I imagine one can always view weeker pieces as being discriminated. For the number of pawns and pieces the board is certainly not too big. I base that statement on having both played and having observed the game being played on a real set with actual players sitting face to face before the game ever came over to CV.

3)You say, 'White has an advantage with symmetrical Sword play.' Reply: My testing of several over-the-board games and watching strong chess players play this live indicate this is not the case. As in Chess, symmetry usually does not last long.

4)You say, 'The new pieces are ridiculously powerful, especially the Medusa.' Reply: Both sides have the same power. And the big board you don't like helps keep the power from being too great a factor. The non-fide chess pieces, aside from Morph and Medusa, exist in Turkish Great Chess (under different names)and are no more powerful in this game than in that game and in the many other games we see them in. The Morph is not that powerful, just a shape shifter that starts out like a Bishop. As for the Medusa - again, both sides have one and need to use it wisely. Again, in watching and playing the game, the idea of too much power doesn't seem to hold up with what is seen in actual game play.

As a final point... I have won many games with the Black pieces. In fact, I don't think I've yet lost with them. If White has the advantage that you point out, well I certainly don't see it.

If you want to play a game as White against me to prove your point, I'll gladly take up the Black army. My guess is that even if you manage to win with White, you will have no easy time of it... in fact, you might even lose.

I do not understand now, when you now say 'Bishops are colourbound as a pair.' Yes, isn't that normal for Bishops? Each side has 1 white square bishop and 1 black square bishop. And Bishops by nature stay on their color.

Also, I do not understand when you say, 'It doesn't matter if play can be assymmetrical. Assymmetry evens out.' I really don't see what you are trying to get at. The possible piece and pawn placement is astronomical. What exactly is 'evening out?' Have you some actual game move lists and or positions (from real games) to serve as examples?