[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments by Joost Brugh
Hexa Decimal. Larger hexagonal chess variant. (11x11, Cells: 90) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I haven't thought about notation while creating the game. Zillions' notation is clear. But one might want a more beautiful notation. Position naming: My Zillions file uses a 21x11 grid (a..u by 1..11, lefmost cell is a6, three adjacent cells are b5, c6 and b7, etc). Naming by segments or roads is probably more elegant. The position names should have the same symmetry as the starting position. Piece abbreviations: Zillions uses the whole piece name. It's possible to abbreviate it to a letter and one might even use no letter for a Pawn. To prevent ambiguity, use a T for Star, M for Pawn Master and an R for Prince when using the letter P for Pawn. Triggered effects: A Pawn Master creates Pawns. A King can create a Pawn Master. The Disruptor, Star and Elephant can capture more pieces. Choose whether or not to notate the effect. Promotion move: In Zilions, the promotion move is executed by dragging one invading Pawn to the Pawn Master and choose the piece. The Pawn captures the Pawn Master and becomes the promoted piece and as an extra effect, the other invading Pawns are removed. This creates ugly moves like 'Pawn p5 x r5 x n5 = Disruptor on r5'. A promotion move can be notated by naming the segment and the promoted piece. Wizard move: In Zillions, a move caused by a Wizard is notated like 'PawnMaster g4 x i2', which looks very strange, especially when you move an enemy piece. Notation should indicate that the move is caused by a Wizard. Also a good idea is to notate whether the moved piece is a friendly piece or an enemy piece. Check, mate, stalemate: Can be done like in chess.
Regenbogen. Unusual spectrum-based game with Wizards, Clerics and Spirits. (Cells: 44) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Nice game. And a nice ZRF challenge. I've made a ZRF file for this game, but I wonder whether I interpret the rules correctly. In the requirements, 10 white and black Drones are listed. For both white and black, these are seven Drones (for each Wizard one) plus four spell Drones for the Cleric, which makes 11. Does this mean that the Cleric is also a spell Drone by itself and actually has three spell Drones? (Like health Pawns). In my ZRF, I used four spell Drones (so, the actual total number of opaque Drones is 11 per color). Another thing is that when you are in a bad position, you can build a wall of spirits (say three per color of which you still have a Wizard). And then keep your Wizard behind and adjacent to their color's spirits. When a spirit dies, just resummon it on the same position. So, if I interpret the rules right, the game is a dead draw. Does this mean that is shouldn't be legal to resummon on the position a spirit just died? Or that when you slay a unit in fight, you occupy the position? Or can units even move through occupied positions?
Hordes of Change - Sample Game. Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I must admit that the game will take long. However, the 120+ moves shouldn't be a conclusion from this sample game, because White is already chanceless in the diagram before the checkmate. If the game weren't meant to show piece dynamics, White would have resigned after move 91 or earlier. But indeed, this is still quite long. However, not longer than many games on these pages.
I think simplification is only possible by reducing the number of pieces (especially play with one King/Knight) and eventually make a smaller board. For example, six bishops, seven rooks and one king on the first two rows of a 7x7 board. It should reduce the number of required moves. A problem with only one King/Knight is that the King/Knight is required to eliminate pieces. The game concept itself shouldn't be simplified. That isn't even that complex. I'll test a variant with a smaller board and less pieces.
Regenbogen. Unusual spectrum-based game with Wizards, Clerics and Spirits. (Cells: 44) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating] Neutron 45. Variant of the game Neutron on a 45-squared board. (7x7, Cells: 45) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I already have a ZRF. But I had to ask some questions to the Chess Variant Pages about member submitted ZRF's and board images larger tan 100k. I have tested it quite a lot. The game can easily be over in about 10 full moves. The game could take a bit longer if the level of play is higher, but it should still be much shorter than a chessgame. Neutron 45 can be compared with the classic Neutron. The main element is the same. Classic Neutron is more tactical (like a mate in n-problem) and Neutron 45 is more strategical (like a chess middle game).
Neutron is a game that is in the basis set of Zillions games. The rules are the same as for Neutron 45, except that the board is 5x5 or 7x7 and that players start with a back rank full of Pawns and no other pieces. There is no 45 contest. If there will be a 45 contenst, this game will appear in the non-competing list.
Penta War 
. Huge game with five clans.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Strange. I tested it and it worked. Maybe it has something to do with the directory structure. In the Penta directory should be the following files: Admin.zif Board.zif (Replaced with the one from small.zip) Clans.zif Moves.zif Palace.zif Penta.zrf Variants.zif Images\ (Contents completely replaced with .bmp's from small.zip) There should also a board.bmp in Small.zip\Images.
Good point. I got used to those piece images by playtesting and forgot that it may be a bit too hard. I've created a new piece set based on the images of the Chess clan and colored markers. If you want to use the small images, you must use the Board.zif from the original small images. You can use both piece sets with the new Clans.zif.
I see that my ZRF significantly undervalues Coordinators. You can fool Zillions and make it think that a piece is more valuable by adding useless add's. The problem with the old ZRF is that the Coordinator is not obliged to capture the coordinated enemy pieces. If you do:
...
(capture ThisAndThat)
add add add add
...
ThisAndThat is only captured in the first add. This action is canceled after that add. The three other add's do a move without performing the capture-action. Maybe it also works if you even further fool Zillions by adding 'completely useless add's'
(piece
(name Coordinator)
...
(moves
(move-type Regular)
(CoordinatorMove n)
...
(move-type Monkey)
(add add add add add add)
)
)
And say in the turn-order that White and Black do only Regular moves. I don't know much about Zillions AI. But maybe this works.
I think such ideas fits well in the idea of a contest. A contest should make people creative by giving a thing to start. It is hard to just create a game from scrap, but if there is one idea given, it is much easier to be creative. Previous contests were almost all about a number of squares on the board. It would be interesting to begin a contest with another given idea than number of squares. An inventive goal would be a nice example.
Probably, it isn't even necessary to add (White Displacement) in the turn-order. You can use (add-partial Displacement) in the Displacer's move, which allows your Displacer to make an extra Displacement-move. The turn-order should be (White Regular) (Black Regular). The Displacement-move should just move a piece to be displaced to the desired position, using from. Don't forget the (verify (or (not-piece? Traveler) (on-board? s))). The question is how you want to pass this move. You can do something with pass partial options. If that doesn't workt just add a move ((set-attribute Monkey false) add) (a move of which Zillions think it is something, but in fact isn't.
Regenbogen . Unusual spectrum-based game with Wizards, Clerics and Spirits.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I see that 'create' is a command which is only in Zillions 2.0 or higher. It is used a lot of times. I don't know what happens if a lower version of Zillions read 'create'. Intuitively, I would expect an error. But if it is simply ignored, than the game just does strange things.
Wildeursaian Qi. Variant on 10 by 10 board combining ideas of several existing variants. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]The point Fergus is making is that strong pieces are confined to their own half of the board. Both players can avoid these pieces simply by keeping their Kings on their own halfs of the board. This doesn't really restrict the Kings' mobility. A way to get a draw in a bad position is trading all compound pieces for attacking non-compound pieces, sit back and see that the enemy compound pieces can't do anything against your King. I still think that the game is a harmonic combination of games on these pages making it a good game for a contest celebrating 10 years of Chess Variant Pages.
Gnu . Simple game featuring the Gnu as promotee.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating] Penta War . Huge game with five clans.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]If you go to Game Courier (Via Chess Variants main page -> Play -> Game Courier). Click on the Editor. You can also reach this page by going to any Game Courier preset and choose 'Edit this preset'. Then, you see a table on which the game is defined. If you set the 'Set group' to 'Chess', then you can set the 'Set' to 'Galactic Graphics'. Then, click on update and the game pieces will change into the Galactic graphics. If you then scroll down, you see a whole alphabet of pieces for both White and Black. You can see other piece sets as well. Update: I see that my link didn't work and that Christine had the link to an even more complete set of Galactic graphics. I used only the 26 from Game Courier. Nice :)
Galactic Graphics. Download this new set of graphics used in Roberto Lavieri's games![All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Very cool Graphics. Now I understand where those slightly different graphics in some Zillions implementations came from. I was used to the 26 in the Game Courier set.
Chakra . Variant with fairy pieces and transmitters that can transport pieces.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]This game is very good. I first thought the Transmitter would dominate the game, but that is certainly not the case. Especially the endgame can be very interesting with Kings interacting with Courtesans and Transmitters. I like the idea a vulnerable piece (the King) is required to fulfill certain tasks (Guide Courtesans, protect and attack the Transmitter) On a moment I saw that my opponent had three Chakra's and I had only one. The problem is that a Chakra becomes an enemy Chakra if you use your King to move off yor Courtesan from your Chakra. I found the bug in the ZRF: On line 347 (in courtslide-copy) '(slide-ecopysub' should be '(slide-copysub'
Chess Variant Pages Rating System. Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]A good thing about a new system is that there is something rated between Good and Poor. If I rate something 'Good', I think it is Good and not the second best out of three possible ratings. A problem with popularity lists is that it could become a competition. Comments should be used to give feedback, to ask and answer question or something like that. Feedback and discussion can be used as inspiration for new projects. I think it shouldn't be about who scores the most comment-points.
Index page of The Chess Variant Pages. Our main index page.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Like Christine, I think that Miserable and the stuff below is useless. What is the difference between a 'Hideous' and 'Loathsome' item? Is the 'Hideous' one better? I think both 'Hideous' and 'Loathsome' (and all those low rating) means that the item is has no value. If you think a submission is 'Loathsome', you should say what the problem is and so increase the chance that the next submission of the same inventor is not 'Loathsome'. Not add a negative atmoshpere by crying 'Loathsome!!'. About specifications like Playability: Neutral, Graphics: Good, etc. I think it is good enough if those specifications are said in the comment text. At least if I can say something between 'Good' and 'Poor', it should be fine. I think that ratings are less important than the comment text.
In Shogi, it is illegal to drop a Pawn to give checkmate. In Zillions, this is hard to program, because you have to detect checkmate 'by hand'. And indeed, there is still a possibility to give checkmate by dropping a Pawn in the Shogi ZRF. If you drop a Pawn on a position which is defended by a pinned defender, you can give checkmate. This is an easy error to make, because Zillions doesn't think you should use a checkmate condition for something else than ending the game (though Shogi is included in Zillions itself). Stranger is that the Shogi Variant program (there is a link from this site to that program), that error is also made. It is strange that the program is able to detect checkmate (It says: Game over), but it didn't detect checkmate to render the Pawn drop illegal. So I wondered what the exact rule is: 'A Pawn cannot be dropped to give checkmate' or 'A Pawn dropped to give check is only legal if dropped on an attacked position or if the King has a flight square' (The latter case would legalize a Pawn drop mate on a position attacked by a pinned defender.
I knew that the move-priorities-trick does not work. Zillions resolves move-priorities before the checkmate condition. So it first concludes there is a normal move and then thus renders the special move illegal versus the move-priorities. And then it renders all normal moves illegal because of check. A possible solution is to take into account that defenders can be pinned by Bishops, Rooks, Dragon Horses and Dragon Kings. It is easy to implement (A defending capture move is either like a Bishop, like a Rook or like a forwardmost Knight, the relative position of the mating Pawn with respect to the mated King is fixed. This leaves six pinnable positions for defenders (four diagonal and two orthogonal). However, this does not solve the problem. It just reformulates the Pawn drop rule to 'A Pawn may not be dropped to check the enemy King when ... (long formulation involving the geometric explanation of some specific pins) ...'. It should be 'A Pawn may not be dropped to give checkmate'. In Shogi these rules may have the same effect, but it doesn't give a checkmate-detection that always works. If someone wants to use Shogi.zrf to make a Shogi variant with some different pieces, he or she can never know that the Pawn Drop Mate rule is well implemented. The same problem is there for Tamerlane 2000, where Princes can become Kings when the original King is mated (It is not implemented because detecting checkmate in Tamerlane 2000 is a nightmare). Another example is 'Thirty-Nine squares Chess' where you may leave your King in check, but you lose if you are mated (Kings return when captured). I have an ugly solution for the last example, but the ZRF is still too ugly and buggy to publish. A (dirty) solution would be that the Pawn Drop Mated player can declare checkmate after a pawn drop. On such a declaration, the whole position if flipped (A Black Gold on 3f becomes a White Gold on 7d, etc) and the player that dropped the Pawn is automatically checkmated if it were checkmate, but that player should win the game if he or she can continue with a legal move (Penaly for a false declaration). It takes a while to implement. You have to know whether the opponent just did a Pawn drop, the flip mechanism must be implemented. The flip must be registered (for instance by dropping a Sign piece on a dummy position). These Sign pieces should also enable a 'death penalty'-move if the dropping player manages to prove that it isn't checkmate. Anyway, it really fucks up the ZRF just to use the (checkmated ...)-command in a different context then ending the game.
Recognized Chess Variant: Wildebeest Chess. Now a Recognized Chess Variant![All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]There is no forced mate with Wildebeest + King against lone King: There are two different checkmates with a Wildebeest and King against a lone King (not counting mirror images or rotated images): a. White Wildebeest d2, White King b3 and Black King a1 b. White Wildebeest d2, White King a3 and Black King a1 The Wildebeest moved last. Before that move, the positions were a. White Wildebeest X, White King b3 and Black King a1 b. White Wildebeest X, White King a3 and Black King a1 X is a position from where a Wildebeest can move to d2 Blacks last move is Kb1-a1. Before that move, the positions were a. White Wildebeest X, White King b3 and Black King b1 b. White Wildebeest X, White King a3 and Black King b1 Blacks Kb1-a1 must be forced, so all other squares must be covered. Square c1 can't be covered by the White King, so c1 must be covered by the Wildebeest, so X is a position that both covers d2 and c1. There is only one solution: X = b3. So possibility a is impossible, because both the Wildebeest and the King must be on b3. This leaves possibility b, but there, the Black King can move to c2
By the Way: The possibility with both the Wildebeest and the King on b3 would be stalemate anyway. For the Camels: the Checkmate positions are: White King (a3 or b3), White Camel (b4 or d2) White Camel (a4, c4 or e2) Black King a1 White's (b4 or d2)-Camel moved last, so before that move, the Camel was on (c1, e3, e5, c7, a7, a3, c5, g3 or g1) (No a1 because of the Black King). Black moved Kb1-a1: Position before that: White King (a3 or b3), White Camel (c1, e3, e5, c7, a7, a3, c5, g3 or g1) White Camel (a4, c4 or e2) Black King b1. Blacks Kb1-a1 must be forced, so c1 must be covered by a Camel (The King doesn't cover it). So there must be a Camel on b4, d4 or f2, but there isn't. So no mate with King + two Camels against lone King.
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.