Comments by GerdDegens

"A Bishop on a4 could move along c5-d6-e7-f8 but not b5-c6-d7-e8. For a Bishop on 4 the reverse would be true. But that also means a Bishop on a4 can only be captured from c5 -d6-e7-f8 and not from b5-c6-d7-e8.

If this is true the ...."

This is absolutely correct when considering the squares of a switch as separate squares. This looks different if the switch is seen as a unit. But that's a convention that needs to be met. I have already described my intention, but it is not an absolute requirement.

"The issue of teh Knight is really an independent one. If the Knight's move is defined 'subtractively', by excluding moves that a Queen can do, its mobility is reduced in the vicinity of the switch, as Q gets extra moves there. In a 'constructive' definition of the Knight move, it would benefit from the switch topology to get extra moves as well."

Exactly this consideration speaks for a separation of the fields 4/a4. A knight starting from 4 via a5, a6 lands on b6. With a switch as a unit, b6 is on the same line. With 4 as a separate square, b6 is not on the same line. For a4 vice versa. That would be my consideration. I'm thinking of novice players who will notice exactly this inconsistency.

A really constructive discussion, thanks for that. I believe most has been discussed and a broad agreement could be achieved.

It's a pity that reasons for programming are decisive for my variant being downgraded. It is also a pity that the name I have chosen should give way to another name. Does that mean my variant is history? Or have I misunderstood something?

"This will treat each space as a fully separate space, and the main feature of a switch that I'll retain is that spaces in the switch share some routes to and away from them, and movement from the narrow end can go in either of two different directions."

I'm sorry, but I didn't understand that.

"...once you have settled on the rules and have described them clearly."

With respect for the great job you are doing, but I can't accept that I haven't set the rules and described them clearly. You can have different perspectives, for example regarding the functionality of the switches. It is also possible to designate parts of it as non-essential. But it is not decisive what can be programmed with the available possibilities. It's a question whether the game can be played with my rules and that the rules are consistent. I had to move concerning the access to the switches because my rules weren't clear. That's it from my point of view. Had to be said. :)

I'm excited to see what happens with my other variants (Chees 69, an addition to Chess 66 and Avatar Chess).

I am very impressed, the changed look in Game Courier is a real enrichment. I am sure that many things can be better represented on this basis. I hope that I am not going too far out on a limb when I say that a variant such as Avatar Chess can be better conveyed. A very interesting upgrade.

If I may intrude into the discussion of how pieces are named and refer again to my variant 'Chess 66'. We have discussed Chess 66 and clarified inconsistencies. For my part, I have taken up the suggestions in my description by adding explanations and clarifying examples. The functionality of the switches as I imagine it is not compatible with Fergus 'Reroute 66' (occupied switsches can be skipped, switching between fields of switches is possible). This should be discussed. Therefore I would have the request to publish my variant 'Chess 66'. Are there any reasons against it?

Thanks Ben for the questions, here it should be clearer in the description (although it is already described between the lines, but that is probably not enough).

When capturing on a switch, first assume that there can be only one piece on a switch (here I differ from Fergus Duniho's Reroute66, a variant of my idea). So, for example, if a rook or queen starts from a1...a3 or from rank 4 and the switch is not occupied, then either square 4 or square a4 can be occupied in the switch.

But there is no choice if the switch is occupied by a piece. If a rook or a queen moves from a1...a3 or from rank 4 into the switch, then the piece in the switch must be captured (because two pieces on the switch are not possible). If the piece was on square 4, then the opponent's piece is on square 4 after the move has been executed (applies to a4 in the same way).

Furthermore, an occupied switch cannot be jumped over and a direct change from 4 to a4 (vice versa a4 to 4) is not possible - differently in Reroute66.

Have I understood the question correctly and hopefully answered it correctly? I would be glad.

To start with point (2): This is clear that a rook on a8 cannot move to a3...a1 if a switch is occupied.

Regarding point (1), I already had doubts yesterday. According to my imagination so far, the squares of a switch (e.g. 4 and a4) can only be reached from a1...a3 or from rank 4. In my description I assume that a bishop starting from e8 can only reach square 4 of the switch and not a4. This affects a rook/queen on a8 in the same way.

But in this case it means that a move into the switch cannot be done if a piece is on a4, because then the squares 4 and a4 would be occupied together - which would not be in accordance with the rules. But this does not seem very logical.

Therefore, I think that a pragmatic solution for switches should be used.

If the switch should not be occupied, it is possible to move into the switch from above, from below or from the side, whereby either field 4 or a4 respectively 5 or h5 can be occupied.

In case the switch is occupied, the piece in the switch must be captured when the opponent's piece moves into the switch; the opponent's piece takes the place of the captured piece.

This means for your point (1): The rook on a8 can capture the piece on a4, and then it stands on a4.

This also means that a bishop on e8 can reach either square 4 or square a4. If a4 is chosen, then the next move can be towards f8 or towards d1. I think that such an procedure simplifies the rules and makes the game easier to play. What do you think?

Perhaps a remark about 'Avatar Chess'. The variants you mentioned (Lumberjack, Smess) were not known to me before. In normal chess, a piece has a fixed skill level, which means that during the game two kings, two queens, four rooks, etc. define the game. In Avatar Chess it is possible that up to 6 queens, 12 rooks etc. are in play - of course rather theoretically and then only for a short time. I think that this could be interesting.

After contact with Ben Reiniger - see comments below - I have adapted my description of the variant 'Chess 66'.

New is that in switches can be operated as follows: It is possible from below, from above and from the side equally to move into the switch and that independent of the direction of the move the squares of a switch can be reached separately (4 or a4 respectively 5 or h5).

It would be nice if the editors of CVP would read my description again crosswise to finally arrange for a publication. If 'Chess 66' should be published, then 'Chess 69' seems to be published as well.

Thank you H.G., that's how it will be for sure. Sounds to me like from another star. It means to me that I will not be able to do it on my own.

Does no one have an idea? I do not want to disturb, but why does no one comment? Lack of interest or there are neither positive nor negative comments? Am open for any criticism. My last comment on the subject for now.

Thank you Christine and thank you Greg,

let me be a little provocative: In normal chess, the board is - please don't be bad - a hole nut. The board is where the game happens, but where the board has almost no influence on what happens in the game.

In Avatar Chess, the pieces are only substitutes and the board determines the rules. This means at the same time that the structures of Avatar Chess are no longer comparable with normal chess.

Especially the mechanism of the pawns, which you mentioned, is cancelled. Pawns have a barrier function in normal chess, in Avatar Chess pawns acquire pieces to maintain the playing power.

Perhaps you can say it like that: Normal Chess is a top down game, where the pieces dominate and where the board plays no role.

Avatar Chess is the opposite, namely a bottem up game with rules from the underground (a little theatricality must be). Maybe a little less predictable, but a little more exciting.

From Magnus Carlsen's environment I got the indication that the game could be chaotic. Maybe that's true, maybe not.

But one thing has to be mentioned: In normal chess there is a tendency to protect strong pieces (e.g. queen). This tendency does not exist in Avatar Chess.

An avatar on a queen square that is captured can easily be replaced by another avatar on the same or similar square. The sturcture of Avatar Chess is quite different.

I hope I haven't upset or hurt anyone.

There is nothing to add to this!

Does a royal moving as orthodox king also trigger a promotion when it moves to 8th rank?

No, this is not intended.

Securing a 'rapid-promotion factory' (e.g. a few white avatars in the trapezoidal region d7-e7-f8-c8 shuttling between 7th and 8th rank) might become the main strategic goal in the game.

The function of the opponent's pawn row is precisely to increase the dynamics of the game. The assumption that this results in a 'rapid-promotion factory' is only valid ceteris paribus, i.e. when the rest of the game is left aside. And even if it does, it is supposed to 'speed up' the game and make it more interesting.

I had already thought about 'forbidding' the return from the opponent's base line to the pawn row. But that would complicate the game and would certainly be inconvenient for programming - if it should come to that.

But I am quite with you, H.G., that the number of avatars that can be won during the course of the game must be limited. Here I will change the description and will include a limit of 5 avatars. This should be enough for the intended effect.

...how many avatars would be needed to force checkmate on a bare royal (moving as orthodox King)?

Black Royal on e8, white on e6, b4, a1-a8 (or h1-h8/b6-b8/b3-b8/c5-c8/c4-c8/c3-c8/f6-f8/f5-f8/f4-f8/g6-g8/g5-g8/g3-g8). It takes 3 avatars to checkmate the royal in this example.

(Quick note: the chess notation changes in Avatar Chess; the initial letters of the pieces are no longer necessary).

I must have answered too quickly and was apparently asleep. Only the moves from a1 to a8 or from h1 to h8 are relevant. Please forget everything else.

Let's take the starting position with the black royal on e8 and white on e6 and b4. The white move a1 to a8 or h1 to h8 checkmates the royal. Or am I wrong? If not, it took 3 avatars to checkmate the royal.

"But why would the King ever move to e8 on the preceding halfmove?" I can't answer and only refer to the gameplay, which causes the initial situation I described, namely black royal on e8 and white on e6 and b4. Then follows the white move a1 to a8 or h1 to h8.

I did indeed overlook the lack of rotational symmetry of the board. I changed that - as well as the max. number (5) of avatars that can be added. Thanks for the input.

Thanks Ben for your posting.
But is there still interest for that idea? And if so, in which 
direction does it go?

That sounds plausible.