Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

~~Earlier~~ ⇧Reverse Order⇩ ~~Later~~

Royal Fury A Zillions-of-Games file

. A Futuristic Chessery Game - relaxed win rules.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]

📝Larry Smith wrote on Thu, Oct 12, 2006 12:23 AM UTC:

I have been considering the strict goal conditions of this game.

The rules state that if both players have lost a Fury that this is a draw.
Which means that once a player has lost a Fury, the draw is the only way to
avoid a loss.

But in the game there are several pieces which have the capability of
capturing more than one piece during a turn. What if a player, who has
lost a Fury, is able to capture both of the opponent's Furies during a
single turn?

Mark Thompson wrote on Wed, Jul 8, 2009 01:50 PM UTC:

It's interesting how much this game resembles Ultima: the major pieces are differentiated by how they capture rather than how they move. The fantasy piece-names might be well adapted to creating armies from those expensive little figurines they sell in many game stores.

📝Larry Smith wrote on Wed, Jul 8, 2009 05:23 PM UTC:

I believe that Royal Fury pre-dates Ultima.

So might it best be said that Ultima resembles Royal Fury? ;-)

John Lawson wrote on Wed, Jul 8, 2009 06:54 PM UTC:

According to the 'Classified Encyclopedia of Chess Variants', Royal Fury is dated 1972, and Ultima is dated 1961.

📝Larry Smith wrote on Wed, Jul 8, 2009 11:48 PM UTC:

Okay, Royal Fury resembles Ultima. |-]

Though did either game really have contact with the other? Chess variants, at that time, were not so widely published. Though many Chess Clubs had either newsletters, or collections, which featured many variants.

The Mimotaur of Royal Fury and the Chameleon of Ultima seem to be the only piece in common. Though the Immobilizer of Ultima might be considered a short-range Gorgon.

John Lawson wrote on Thu, Jul 9, 2009 04:07 AM UTC:

I became a chess variantist in 1962, so yes I know how hard information was to find in the olden days.

Bob Abbott published a paperback book 'Abbott's New Card Games', Funk and Wagnalls, $0.95, in 1963, containing the rules to Ultima, so the possibility of cross-fertilization is there.  I happen to have two copies.

But does it matter really?  I see no reason to be concerned with 'primacy'.  They are different games, inspired by an idea that could occur to anyone.

Mark Thompson wrote on Thu, Jul 9, 2009 02:50 PM UTC:

Ultima was also written up by Martin Gardner in his Scientific American column sometime in the 1960s, and became fairly widely known from that. What inspired what is mainly of historical interest, but also might direct people who are interested in games like Ultima or Maxima to check out Royal Fury.

📝Larry Smith wrote on Thu, Jul 9, 2009 03:38 PM UTC:

I should have said that the Immobilizer of Ultima might be considered a 'near-sighted' Gorgon. :)

8 comments displayed

~~Earlier~~ ⇧Reverse Order⇩ ~~Later~~

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.