Comments by CharlesDaniel

I have done a lot of chess variants, so there is no way that I am
personally putting chess over chess variants but ...
I am commenting on what I observe in the chess world and I don't see what
you guys claim is happening. 

For Bobby Fischer chess was dead, when he realized he could not re-enter
competively - that was his personal problem 

The chess forums, online chess world is alive and well - they hate short
draws (the GM draw), but no body cares if half the matches are contested
draws . I find it strange that this faulty argument keeps getting re-used.

Any good player will tell you, if you can keep drawing your chess games
with ANY chess player, you are one of the worlds best. 
It is precisely because of this that the WC match format is so exciting
and some like it to be about 24 games not 12. A WC match is like 2 boxers
fighting a 12 round match with one gaining just enough to win. 

Most chess has moved online now. But if it is declining - it does not bode
well for chess variants. Grand Theft Auto or some othe frivolousgame is in
vogue.  


And what is speed chess? Isn't that Blitz chess?

What is true chess? What is the most efficient way to learn Chess? 

These arguments just seem nonsensical to me.  - 

Where is this new 'game' that is taking over that we now have chess die
hards? It seems to be that the same old arguments are used by about 3-5 of
the SAME  people on various internet sites.

Thus, one can develop a pawn, and then later drop and develop a ninja pawn (with attacking possibilities) in one turn.

Note that the minimum distance a ZigZag Bishop moves is a Zebra's move away: One orthogonal and TWO diagonally outwards. 

Think of it as a zig  then a zag followed by 1 or more spaces along the diagonal as a bishop. Or it slides 1 or more like a biship first and then zags 1 more in same direction and then zigs. 

ZigZag Rook's minimum distance is a camel's move away Two orthogonal and one diagonally outwards. 
So its 1 or more spaces as a Rook followed by a zig in same direction and then a zag. 
Or a Zag diagonally then a zig and then moves 1 space or more like a rook in same direction. 


So not only they cannot move to adjacent squares, they cannot move to squares a knight's move away. (This is unlike the duke and cavalier that can move a knight's move away.)

Handicapping them close range does make them less powerful and more on par with the other pieces. However, there were other reasons: as I mentioned their minimum distance a camel or zebra move away, make their movement more  unique on this board. THe two new knights already have a  Ferz or  wazir in addition to  knight movement. The Zigzag Bishop/Rook are thus more susceptible to the knights and pawns. 

The piece values from the Zillions file (which will be up soon):

Wazir Knight - 13860 
Ferz Knight - 13287 
ZigZag Biship - 13914 to 11590
Zigzag Rook - 22078  to 17733
Rook - 17292 
Bishop 11613
pawn - 3620 
Ninja Pawn - 5915

To anonymous poster: I don't care too much for jargon and neither should anyone who is interested in playing this chess variant. If you had really wanted to contribute terminology, you could have just done it, I have no problem with that.  Instead you resort to attacking the variant while hiding as an anonymous poster. 
My chess variants are geared  more for the mainstream, which is why I try to avoid using jargon when simple words can do. Its a 2 path bent rider but only people in chess variants understand the term bent rider. 
2 path bent rider=crooked dual path slider. 
The word crooked is more readable for the general audience. 
The word Zig Zag is already proven to be corrrect in the sense, so this topic is now moot.

There is nothing counterintuitive about the array - the unprotected pawn is easily defended by the wazir knight in one move. 
If you look at the opening example you will also understand the starting positions of the ZigZag pieces 

Many chess variants have one or more unprotected pawns - why not criticize them as well?

Larry, thanks for your comments, they were most helpful in dealing with the confusion. 

I think the problem is the poster's unshakable belief that only the Boyscout can be a zigzag bishop  (even though I and some others may not find the term 'Bishop' as referred to the boyscout intuitive) 

I don't think the comments need to be reviewed or delayed as long as they are not overly obscene. As the site gets more popular, the quality of comments may very well decrease as in YouTube, but this is the price to pay so that anyone can voice their opinion.

Hey Claudio, 

Thanks for the rating but I am afraid I do not follow you. 

Your previously mention:  'But, looks to me that is a template, as the snake. A template that can be applied to the various atoms and generals.'

I guess you are right, this template or formula can be applied to other types of pieces. Of course I used this idea in Asylum Redux and Octopus Chess as well. 

I did not realize you were asking me a question. Would you care to elaborate on this a bit more?

George Duke, thank you for your comment, but there are many inaccuracies in them that I shall address.

Firstly, there never is and never shall be any need for an inventor to " acknowledge" every instance of "similar" piece that ever existed. In a few instances as in your persistent bringing up of this flawed “airplane” piece, there is absolutely no connection. I have always stated that the Flying Bomber owes its existence to Checkers / Draughts (and which probably the airplane piece too is derived from)

Secondly, since my ZigZag Bishop/Rook differs from the Duke/Cavalier in as much degree as your Falcon does from the Bison, there is no reason why I must bend over backwards and chastise myself for simply using the word “new”. I certainly haven’t patented the piece – and I suspect I could if I wanted to.

Thirdly, I never suggested nor agreed to have delayed evaluations - that suggestion was made by another poster.

You are free to mention what you think are similar pieces, but ultimately it is up to the inventor to state his/her inspiration regardless of whether you think he/she is being truthful or not.

I sincerely hope that others will continue where I left off – which is mainly adding one or two pieces to 10x10 board and strive for balanced gameplay.

Sorry George, 
But no one cares about your  patent. And the only piece you invented is far less original than the very many I have invented or derived from other pieces. 

What I do know from playtesting Asylum Redux, Octopus Chess and Zigzag madness is that the gameplay is far more satisfying than your clunky  falcon game. 

Still your comments are quite amusing esp your reference to yourself as 'we' . 


Keep up the good work.

I reuse much of my original ideas discarding only what I see as completely unworkable. For example initially interested in Gryphon/Aanca I felt that they may be a bit too powerful on the board and so limited its power. The Hippogriff was too limited so I developed the Stealth Gryphon/Anti-gryphon for Stealth Ninja Chess.
However, these pieces could be powered up more by providing dual paths as the Duke/cavalier but with the same minimum square restrictions. Thus the minimum distance – the Zebra move for the zigzag bishop and the Camel move for the zigzag rook can be considered the atom as you call it. This configuration seems far more interesting especially since they are more susceptible to the knights despite their power.

I reused the Flying Bomber that I developed as a compound of different “atoms” that already existed while introducing the checkers/draughts motif to a chess piece. The latest re-incarnation is the Flying Guillotine that you see in Wreckage.

Also see my Zillions file for Pick the Piece Big Chess that has many different ideas contained in a whopping 34 games.

I will not have time to continue this work in the immediate future but you (or anyone else) are welcome to expand on my ideas.

Thanks for your comment Jose. In response to your question - The bishops are already a bit stronger on a 10x10 board so maybe don't need improving, while a regular knight is a bit weaker. On 10x10, Zillions rates the wazir-knight a half pawn more than the bishop and the regular knight almost a pawn less than the bishop. So WN=B+1/2P; B=N+P; WN > FN > B > N

Thanks for you comments Joe and George. Regarding George Duke’s  ninja pawn comments: It is true that the complexity of the rules and/or the drop mechanism may put off some players, but the upside is a much greater scope for pawn play. Weakened pawns and pawn chains are characteristics of large board chess. Faster standard pawns and Ninja Pawns address this drawback as well as providing richer and unique endgame scenarios. The threat of quick promotion (by moving 2 steps forward) and ninja pawn lateral capture add substantial power to advanced pawns or ninja pawns in enemy territory. 
     Interestingly, Nahbi Chess mentioned by Joe, allows standard pawn to move sideways on enemy half of board, but this may not be sufficient to overcome the inherent weakness of pawns on larger boards. On Nahbi vs Sorcerer Snake: the Nahbi allows one path to destination squares so can be blocked easier while the Sorcerer Snake can choose an alternative path and is a bit harder to block.  On a crowded board, this difference can be substantial, on a more empty board not so much.

I see no reason the dropped piece is 'FORCED' to make an entry soon. That makes the game more contrived and less flexible. If anything it is preferable to leave that up to the players. A good player will be smart enough to know that the opponent will eventually introduce the new piece. If a player is good enough to play without the piece he/she can dos so knowing that the option to introduce it still remains.

By the way your description for Pioneer Chess is faulty. IF White turns down the piece and Black overrules - no game can be played - both players disagree on what game to play.

Yes, but this is my point. The pieces are too heavy and most likely give white a huge advantage. Anyway, I saw the video of Seirawan introducing the game. From what I gather he seemed like a nice guy and quite honest though there is still a possibility that this variant was invented purely for profit  
which by itself is not bad but not with the flaws it has. 
Anyway, he seemed quite interested  in the new pieces but i get the feeling he has not explored the game in depth and not too interested if the game is balanced. For example he showed a mate in 4 which went something like e4 e5 d4 d3 pxp pxp qxq drop elephant mate. 
He seemed quite excited by that - and yes these things fascinated me when i started out with chess variants. But i have come to realize that very powerful pieces on a board while interesting have their drawbacks esp on a 8x8 board. 
Also you are basically saying it is an advantage to be able to drop the heavy pieces anytime so there should only be a few chances at the beginning.
I am saying though that the move followed by a drop is actually 2 moves. Why not simply keep the same restriction of introducing early but make the drop a separate turn? IN that case that mate in 4 could not have happened and white may not get such a huge advantage. 

Seirawan  also mentioned that their first idea was to have the pieces exist  on the board right from the beginning in a fianchetto and they rejected that idea. It seems to me that they did not playtest before and play around with the different parameters enough before releasing. 

Anyway this whole discussion gives me an idea for a new variant on an 8x8 very similar and in my opinion better. 


I really wish I could stop making variants -- 

and leave it to you to just make every conceivable one possible :) 


i guess the next 2  or 3 will be my encore and i am done for good ...

hopefully :)