[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments by MichaelNelson
Pocket knight. Each player has a knight that he can drop during the game. (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Over the weekend I'm going to try my hand a a game along these lines. I will be experimenting with promotion of pieces as well as the pocket/demotions. Pawns can be pocketed free and can drop anywhere except 1st and 8th ranks. Pawn promotions will be limited to weaker pieces so it won't be unbalancing. I intend to make a wide variety of pieces available for promotion/demotion choices--so pocketing will be a strategy for morphing your army as well as gaining positional advantage.
I have the game concept worked out and I'm going over the list of pieces and writing a ZRF. Pieces will have value classes from 1 for pawns, 2 for minor pieces, up to 8 for an Amazon-rider (!). If you don't have a piece in your pocket you may remove one of your pieces (not your king) from the board and put it 'in your pocket'. This piece is is immediately demoted one value class (but pawns are not demoted)--except when the piece is removed from the eight rank: in that case the piece is immediately promoted one value class (but a class 8 piece remains class 8). You may choose any piece of the appropriate value class when you put the piece in your pocket. If you have a piece in your pocket, you may drop it on the board. A class 1 piece (pawn) may drop anywhere on the board, a class 2 piece may drop on the first to seventh ranks, a class 3 piece on the first to sixth ranks, and up to a class 8 piece can only drop on the fisrt rank. Pocketing and dropping each count as moves. Promotion is done only by pocketing on the enemy eighth rank, so it is legal to pocket a pawn, drop it on the eight rank, repocket it and promote to a minor piece. But this will take four moves to get the minor piece on the board. Pocketing and dropping closer to the eight rank for promotion won't be used for non-pawns as you demote one class for the first pocketing and the promotion takes you back to where you started-- though this could be a viable way to reconfigure your army. A pawn dropped on the first rank may not take a double step, a pawn dropped on the second rank or moved up from the first rank may. Castling may not be done with a dropped Rook. Your may keep a piece in your pocket as long as you wish, but you choose the new piece when the piece goes in to the pocket. Strategy and tactics will focus on breaking through to the enemy back rank to use it for promotions. I would like to hear suggestions for the pieces in each value class.
The name of the game is now Pocket Mutation Chess. I've dropped the whole demotion idea. Now any piece retains its value when pocketed and can optionally mutate into another piece of the same value class. Promotion is open to all pieces except the highest value piece and the King. This is done by pocketing the piece when it is on the enemy's back rank--the piece mutates into a piece of the next higher value class. You can keep a piece in your pocket as long as desired, but can only have one piece in your pocket at a time. Stronger pieces are more restricted in where they can be dropped when leaving the pocket. You can pocket your King, even in check--but in this case, you must drop it on the next turn if there is any empty, unattacked square on the board. This makes checkmate of a player with an empty pocket impossible, so bare King also wins (immediately, no chance to draw by baring the enemy King). Stalemate is virtually impossible, but is a draw if it occurs. I'm still testing this but it seems playable. I have a ZRF which I can email to anyone who would like to test the game before I submit it.
Pancake. A piece that moves and captures like a non-royal King or a Nightrider-style cannon.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Interesting piece and an interesting CWDA army. I would guess the Pancake would be a very strong minor piece--maybe even a weak major piece, as the non-royal King is very strong by itself and the cannon-Nightrider, while useless in the endgame, is potentiallly deadly in the opening and in closed position middlegames. Probably equal to the Rook very early, declining to a quantum or two better than the Bishop very late. Perhaps the Queen would combine the Waffle and Donut. This piece carpet bombs the 2-square radius around it and the Wazir move helps with positioning it favorably--though a Ferz move would be more useful. It this is a little weak, maybe add the cannon-Nightrider component from the Pancake. With this sort of Queen, the army will have some of the feel of the Pizza Kings (no long range pieces, good short range coverage), but the cannon-Nightrider will add a new element.
Perhaps the army could use Joseph's Danish--say by replacing the Waffles with WmA's. this would add up about right and would give an unusual material balance (topheavy, but not as much as the Amazon Army). But what would we call the modified Waffles?
Heroes Hexagonal Chess. Hexagonal variant with special Hero piece which enhances other pieces. (Cells: 84) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I have been playing this game with the author by email. I find it highly playable--the moves are much easier to visualize than in Glinski's. The whole concept of the Hero piece is fascinating. By far the best hex game I've played.
Chancellor. Moves like rook or as knight.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]With due respect to problemists, Chess problems are not Chess and Fairy Chess problems are not Chess Variants. Though, of course many individuals have a high level of interest in both problems and games, the overlap is by no means 100%. For myself, I have only a very mild interest in problems (though I can see why someone could find them fascinating). Similiarly, I have known problemist fanatics who have little interest in playing the game--to each his own. If there is to be an orthodoxy in the naming of variant pieces let it be based on usage in games rather than in problems--likewise, if there is to be an orthodoxy in the naming of problem pieces, let it be based on usage in problems rather than games. I don't really care what someone names a piece. What would be a nice touch on the game pages would be to put the piece's 'funny notation' after the name: Thus the inventor could use Chancellor (RN), Marshal (RN), Empress (RN), or Bogeyman (RN) and I know at a glance what piece is being refered to.
Betza Notation. A primer on the leading shorthand for describing variant piece moves.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I'm revising my comments as I thought of a better idea: Mao would be [nWF] meaning moves as Wazir then Ferz in the same move and cannot jump. [WF] would be a synonym for N, as would [FW]. A piece that could move a a Mao or could stop on the first square would be W[nWF] (the Rhino from Captain Spaulding Chess, for example). A hypothetical piece that could move as a Mao only if the orthogonally adjacent square is occupied could be [jWF]. This would be useful for bent riders, too: a Gryphon would be F[nFR] (or F[nFWW]), while the variety of Gryphon that can't move a single diagonal step would be [nFR] (or [nFWW]).
A suggestion for leaps outside the 3x3 range: {x,y} where x and y are the number of squares in each direction. Thus the Pegasus would be J{1,4}.
I prefer [nWF]to n[WF] as other cases might be amiguous. Compare [nWA] vs. n[WA] does the latter mean that the Alfil portion of the move may not be a jump? But [nWA] means that the Wzir move must be to an empty square, while [nWnA] would designate a Wazir move followed by a non-jumping Alfil move. I think 'outward' should be implied and we need designators for the contrary cases, which are less common.
Glenn is right, nW doesn't make sense. I propose that the n for the compound move be implicit, like 'outwards'. So [WF] designates a piece whose move consists of moving one square orthogonally to an empty square, followed by moving one square diagonally outward to an empty or enemy-occupied square. The piece that can make this move even if the orthogonal square is occupied would be designated N. If the orthogonally adjacent square must be occupied, then use j[WF].
With due respect to the person who apologized for starting this animated debate, he didn't start it, I did with my comment on the Chancellor/Marshall/Empress thread on 3/24 in which I recomended using Betza notation on the games pages in parens after the piece name. Out of curiousity, Ralph, what are the two things higher than starting an animated debate? :) Perhaps a special punctuation character could be added to the notation meaning 'this notation does't fully describe the piece, you must read the description.' The purpose of this is to use notation to describe the piece as well as possible even when it can't do so completely. So for example, I might have this piece on my game page: Bogeyman (RN#) where # means 'not completely described'. Then you can tell at a glance that the piece is similar to a Chancellor, even if not identical.
Cardinal. Moves as bishop or as knight.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]While the Cardinal can give mate unassited to a King in the corner, can the Cardinal force mate (with or without the help of its own king)? If so, what is the technique?
ximeracak.. A leaper-heavy fantasy variant designed for play with a standard set. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I have discoverd the Fool's mate for ximeracak. by having a longer variant of it sprung on me in a game. 1. Wizard d1-c4 X 2. Wizard c4-b5 mate Where X is any move that does not vacate a square adjacent to the General or defend b5. A beautifully treacherous game indeed.
Fergus, I like your system, but I have an idea that I think might be an improvement. Though you allow for O or D, you only allow 4 relative directions (F, B, L, and R). Would it be better to have 8 relative directions? Then a Knight would be (O#) where # is whatever symbol means turn 45 degrees either way, rather than the current (OFT). Though it doesn't matter much for the Knight, I think it would make the Mao clearer. This would also be adaptable to hex board by defining 6 relative directions.
Michael, I look forward to seeing your finished product. I would also add Tony Quintanilla'a Fresh Pawn--which can only take a double step once, but can do so on any rank. While I admire your abiltity to program all possible en passant situations, I can't help wondering if the game would be more playabe without e.p.
In Ralph Betza's article on the <a href='http://www.chessvariants.com/piececlopedia.dir/ideal-and-practical-values-3.html'>Rider Problem</a>, he indicates that the multiplier for a rider is roughly inversely propoertional to the geometric length of the base move. So the Rook is worth 3 times the Wazir (move lenght=1.000), the Bishop is worth 2 times the Ferz (move length=1.414), and so on. He gives 1.5 for the Nightrider, making it exactly equal to the Rook (where the Rook is 4.5 pawns rather than 5, see Ralph's articles on piece values).
Since the geometric move length of the Mao's move and the Knight's move are the same, the same muliplier applies. So if the Mao is worth 2/3 of a Knight, the Maorider is equal to the Knight.
Point well taken, Peter. I had assumed an 8x8 board. On a larger board I would expect the Maorider to be stronger than the Knight, but still equal to the Bishop, which is also stronger than the Knight on a larger board. As an aside, I think the Moarider (based on the Moa, which moves one diagonally, then one orthogonally) is worth very slightly more than the Maorider because it is easier to develop.
Using Betza's 'magic number', the probabity of at least one of two adjacent squares being open is quite close to 90%, so the moorider/outrigger should be worth 90% of the Nightrider--perhaps a weak Rook rather than a strong Bishop.
Touring Chess. Pieces can either move normally or leap on a Knight's tour only known in advance to the referee. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]A really great imperfect information variant. With regard to Knight moves, shouldn't non-touring Knight moves be sent directly? If the opponent receives Ra1-c3 from the moderator, he knows it is a touring move from the move itself, not just from having received it from the moderator. So both sides get the same information. Similarly, if the opponent got Bc1-f4 from his opponent, he would recognize it as a non-touring move from the move itself, not just from having received it directly from the opponent. But if all Knight moves go through the moderator and a player receives Nb1-c3, he can't tell whether it is a normal move or a touring move, but the player who sent the move does know. Why should there be a disparity for Knights, when in all other cases equal information is obtained? One of the things I like about this game is that when you obtain information you also give it to the enemy--mkaes you think twice about exploring.
I see your point about head games as well, Ralph. You may well have started a family of variants with this game. I cna envision an imperfect information varaint based on Archoniclastic Chess, for example, where the pattern of augmenting squares is not known to the players. This would require the moderator for every move, but could be computer moderated.
84 Spaces Contest Jury members. Please consider becoming a judge for the 84 squares contest![All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I would prefer to remain with Group C, as I have already started playtesting, but I am willing to switch to Group A if you can let me know as soon as possible--I have more playtesting time available this weekend and want ot put it to good use. I am planning to judge the finals if I am eligible to do so, though I'm hoping I can't--I'd rather like to win a prize!
Whale Shogi. Shogi variant. (6x6, Cells: 36) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]If Hans has interpreted the inventor correctly, a captured Killer Whale does not demote to Porpoise. Only two special rules about drops are given (for Porpoise and Dolphin), and the general rule is that the taken piece becomes a reinforcemnt to be dropped. This is probably the best for play balance as well--the Killer Whale is enormously powerful in this game and it costs less to lose it if it demotes when captured.
Poker Chess. Squares contain cards, and players win by forming poker hands with the cards on the squares occupied by their pieces. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Excellent game concept. I would suggest a rule change. Like many non-Poker games that use Poker hands, the relative values of different hand types get distorted. It is always harder to get three of a kind than a pair, but a straight or flush may or may not be harder to get than three of a kind. So why not use Poker hands with the provision that straights and flushes don't count? A amusing variant might be to play for high hand on turns 1-5, say, and play for low hand on 6-10, etc. For the endgame, if a player doesn't have 5 cards, a missing card ranks low. So in playing for low hand, K-7-5 beats K-7-5-2 (which is logical, since the latter hand wins playing for high). Of course the five turn alternation frequency can be changed as well.
I had an idea for a fiendishly complex variant of Poker Chess, borrowing an idea from Extinction Chess. 1. In ranking Poker hands, straights and flushes don't count and aces are always high. 2. If one player has fewer cards than the other, the missing cards rank below the opponents low cards. Thus A-7-5-3 is higher than A-7-5 but lower than A-8. A hand with no cards is lowest of all. 3. There are five species of pieces: Royals (King and Queen), Rooks, Bishops, Knights, and Pawns. For each species represented in a player's army, he must choose one card from a square containing a piece of that species if possible (he doesn't choose a card for a species if and only if all his pieces of that species are on squares that don't have cards associated with them). 4. The objective may be to have the high hand, or to have the low hand. At the start of the game, the objective is to have the high hand. 5. After each hand the loser may if he chooses change the objective for the next hand. If he does so, the winner scores an extra point. In the case of a tie, the objective remains unchanged. Rule 5 gives the player a tool to break a long string of wins, but it is costly to use.
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.