[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments by J Andrew Lipscomb
The new piece in this game is more commonly known as the Crooked Bishop (fou tordu) or the Boyscout.
As far as using different piece sets: the 'eccentric' sets of a lot of variants would be bad choices, but I could see applying these rules to Grand Chess (the Nightrider power seems more workable on the 10x10) or to Chu Shogi with Schmittberger's hierarchy (a piece taken out of the promotion zone would promote either to anything in the next category up, or to its own natural promoted form).
One source of confusion in the terminology. Normally, the term 'royal' in chess variants is used to indicate those pieces that form the victory conditions. Perhaps the non-decisive royals in this game should be demoted to merely noble ranks.
I can't comment particularly on the quality of the game (not having played it), but ya gotta wonder about inventors who think a Camel (which its Jester is) is the equal of a Rook...
Actually, vertex-then-side does not allow a knight to land on the same color. It will pass through its own color, then land on a different one. Also, what is the logic behind which three lines a rook/queen may use? The diagrams show three lines, but there are three others that equally fit the description of the move.
Hmm... all bishops are bound to the light squares?
My suggestion for castling would be as follows: the corner disk must not have moved, and must have the potential to be a rook (castling will reveal it to be a rook). Pawn promotion is also potentially awkward. I propose a variant of the Grand Chess rule (a pawn may not move to the last if the owner already has seven quantum pieces, revealed or unrevealed, but may still give check). I also propose that pawns promote revealed. I would also note that this variant can be combined with many others, such as Capablanca/GrandChess, Different Armies, or even Jetan (to practice the mechanics, you could also go the other way and apply it to Los Alamos Chess).
How is 'distance' defined in this context? Number of King-steps, number of Wazir-steps, Cartesian distance?
'Uncovered pawns are not that problematic because any situation will have to be set up randomly very short before a game starts. Looking at the Shogi game there are indeed three uncovered pawns in the beginning and the game still does exist today. Capablanca's chess is somehow different to that because of the huge number of possible starting arrays viewing all shuffled combinations.' I think the problem is more a matter of the piece set and shape of the board. Even if a pawn is undefended in a Fischerandom setup, it can't be attacked instantly, unless it's an a/b/g/h pawn and the piece on its diagonal is a bishop or queen. But an archbishop or chancellor has a pretty good chance of being able to make an instant attack on that pawn by jumping over its own pawn row (as the chancellor can indeed do to the i-pawn in Capablanca's setup), and the diagonal discovered attack can affect 80% of the pawns instead of half. Upon further review, we're discussing opposite ends of the issue. The points I just made are why the no-undefended-pawn rule is desirable; the large number of positions is what makes it practical (i. e. you still have a huge pool of positions to choose from).
Two other notes. First, ShoppingCarts should be able to promote on the square where a Rex began, as well as those you list. Second, you only need 71 squares--the last Fire is irrelevant to the play.
You also failed to allow Wazir Kings to move in any of the actions. Presumably they should move instead of a pawn/drone/engineer?
Actually, on a plain 8-by-8 board, the Wazir with the opposition can force victory by simply closing in on each move and eventually cornering its foe. This may not be true on the board at hand, though; there is a possibility that the defender could thwart that plan by making proper use of the quicksand center region.
Actually, no English-speaking countries remain that use the 'long scale' where billion is 10^12. The British officially abandoned the 'British system' in 1974, although there are those who still remember/use it. The only unambiguous way of saying it is '100 million million' ::)
'Baring the king' (as it is traditionally called) does not end the game in standard Western chess--the player with the lone king cannot actually win (since there's no way to give mate with just a king), but can still lose or draw. If both kings are bared, of course, the game is a draw.
If the scoresheet provided is electronic, then that's what the players use. As for personal electronic scoresheets, you'd need a way to prove that they can't also be used as playing aids, but that done, the arbiter would be within his rights to declare that an accommodation for a handicap, I would think.
You could easily play with knights instead of bishops--that would be Los Alamos Chess plus castling.
Keeping in mind, however, that stalemate is a win in Wildebeest Chess, can a Wildebeest or two Camels (or for that matter two Knights, or Knight+Camel) defeat a lone king with that rule in place?
The Waffle is for some strange reason linked to the Gold General. It actually appears in Chu Shogi under the name Phoenix.
Think of it as two games of checkers played at once, one on light squares and one on dark. (Thus, the starting setup is 24 pieces, solidly occupying the back three ranks.) Then change the pieces' capturing move to orthogonal instead of diagonal (straight ahead only for plain men, all four directions for crowned men)--so a piece in one game actually captures pieces from the other.
I believe that by 'attack' he means 'capture.' Always tricky writing in a non-native language...
'Ancress' is a pretty rare spelling. The more usual term is 'anchoress.'
I think the 'and then three' comment is redundant for the Knight, since six Knight-leaps in the same direction would require a board of 13 squares in at least one dimension. Hmmm... using such a piece in a variant with a larger board, could the Rook and Bishop go 'and then four,' or is three the speed limit? Come to think of it, a piece like this with a 'speed limit' of 2 might be interesting-- the Rookwise piece would be color-changing, while the Bishopwise one would remain colorbound, but switch Alfil-bindings... hmm, I just reinvented the Panda and the Bear.
Looking at rules 2 and 3 together, I assume this is the Russian-style multi-jump rule (no stopping if the piece has another jump, but you may take it in a direction that has fewer)?
Hmm... all pieces are colorbound, and both players have all their pieces on one color--which is not the same as the color containing the opponent's pieces... I don't think the two players ever interact! (Think you may have meant 9x13, which puts both players on the same color and gives you 59 cells of that color...)
Isn't the running-leaf by definition stronger than a queen, since the queen is a subset of it? (That is, if the 'degenerate' planar move in which one side of the plane is 1 is an allowable move.) And I can tell that the young-lion is not allowed to return to its original square (a limitation not shared by the Japanese lion), but there is one slight unclear point: is it allowed to make double captures?
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.