Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

I'm done working on Chess66 for Game Courier today. The directions are looking good, but I still have to adapt the Pawns to work with switches, and I still have to prevent double occupancy of the switches. Since Firefox won't remember this after I shut down my computer, here are the moves I've been making to test things out. In the meantime, feel free to check it out, and apart from the issues I just mentioned I still need to work on, let me know if you find any illegal moves it permits or any legal moves it doesn't permit.

1. P c2-c4 
1... p f7-f5 
2. Q d1-A4 
2... q e8-H5 
3. Q A4-a7 
3... p f5-e4 
4. N b1-a3 
4... q H5-e5 
5. P c4-d5 
5... q e5-d4 
6. N a3-c5 
6... p e7-e6 
7. Q a7-a3 
7... b f8-e7 
8. N c5-A4 
8... b e7-g4 
9. P b2-b3 
9... b g4-H5 
10. P b3-b4 
10... q d4-b4 
11. Q a3-g3 
11... p g7-g5 
12. P d5-e6 
12... p g5-f4 
13. Q g3-h7 
13... r h8-h7 
14. N A4-d5 
14... b H5-g6 
15. N g1-h3 
15... n b8-c6 
16. N d5-a4 
16... b g6-h5 
17. N a4-c3 
17... q b4-c5 
18. P e2-e3 
18... b h5-h4 
19. P a2-a3 
19... q c5-h5 
20. N c3-a4 
20... q h5-h6 
21. N a4-c6 // - Check! -
21... p b7-c6 
22. N h3-f4 
22... q h6-e6 
23. N f4-h6 
23... q e6-d5 
24. N h6-f5 
24... n g8-h6 
25. N f5-c4 
25... b h4-e8 
26. P a3-a4

8. N c5-A4

According to my definition, the switch can only be operated from 'below'. After that, the move N c5-A4 would not be possible. N d5-a4 would be possible. However, in my reply to Bn Em I proposed an extension of my definition.

17. N a4-c3 ---> N a4-c2

18. N f5-c4 ---> N f5-d4

"En Bw" - sorry, won't happen again.

"That's interesting; given that a rook is allowed to move sideways from 4 onto b4 and beyond, that means that a rook on 4 can threaten a rook on b4 without being attacked back. Is this intentional?"

That doesn't seem logical indeed.

Assuming a rook is on 4 and an opponent's rook is on e4, my definition means that the rook on 4 can attack the rook on e4, but the reverse is not possible. That's inconsistent. It is probably appropriate to add that the switch can be operated not only from 'below' but also from the side. This would eliminate the inconsistency.

It is probably appropriate to add that the switch can be operated not only from 'below' but also from the side.

Seeing as it can also be operated from ‘above’ too, if not already occupied (i.e. from my understanding, B a4–c2; R a6–4 is legal), I would agree that'd make sense.

17. N a4-c3 ---> N a4-c2

25. N f5-c4 ---> N f5-d4

?? Are those corrections? Aren't those diagonal moves, the way you've assigned file labels? of two and one steps respectively?

According to my definition, the switch can only be operated from 'below'. After that, the move N c5-A4 would not be possible.

A switch is an overlapping pair of spaces that in some ways operate together as a single space. By their very nature, they operate as a switch only from a given direction. From below, a piece is given two choices for how to continue its vertical movement. However, this property of a switch is not a property of the individual spaces whose overlap constitutes the switch. So, restrictions on movement to A4 have nothing to do with your definition of a switch. They are simply arbitrary restrictions on movement.

There are already other examples of A4 being reachable from above. For example, a Rook or Queen on a8 could move to A4, and a Bishop or Queen on e8 could move diagonally to A4. You have also agreed that it makes sense to let it be reachable from the side.

I'm now going to propose some rule changes. Since the switch can make a piece more powerful, this should be balanced by making a piece using a switch more vulnerable. Allow pieces access to the spaces of a switch from any direction, and when a piece moves to a switch, allow capture of any piece on the switch even if the capturing piece moves to the other space. For example, if a Bishop is on A4, and a Rook moves to a4, consider the Bishop on A4 to be captured.

Currently, the Knight is the only piece whose powers of movement are restricted in the vicinity of a switch. Correct this by allowing a Knight to move to any space that can be reached by a step in an orthogonal direction followed by a step in an outward diagonal direction, or by a step in a diagonal direction followed by a step in an outward orthogonal direction. This is the normal definition for how a Knight moves in Chess and other variants, and it would allow the Knight to also increase its capabilities in the vicinity of a switch.

One last rule change I would suggest is to let Rooks, Queens, and Kings use their ability to move horizontally to switch between the spaces constituting the switch. This would basically involve lifting one more restriction on movement to the spaces making up a switch.

The moves B a4–c2; R a6–4 are legal moves, they are conform to the rules.

Move 17: N a4-c3 doesn't seem legal, but N a4-c2 would be legal.

Move 25: N f5-c4 doesn't seem legal in same way, but N f5-d4 would be legal again.

I have started writing up a brief summary of the rules to appear underneath the board for Game Courier.

Move 17: N a4-c3 doesn't seem legal, but N a4-c2 would be legal.

It looks legal to me. Why wouldn't this move be legal? Meanwhile, a4 and c2 are along a diagonal, and N a4-c2 would definitely be illegal.

Move 25: N f5-c4 doesn't seem legal in same way, but N f5-d4 would be legal again.

N f5-c4 is a perfectly legal Knight move, and I see no reason why it would be illegal. Meanwhile, f5 and d4 are diagonally adjacent, and N f5-d4 is clearly illegal.

When you're examining the moves, be sure to click on Record, paste the moves into the box, and click on View. This will let you view each position. I think you made some wrong judgements, because you got confused about how notation for this game works. Vertical movement shifts to an adjacent file as it goes between the 4th and 5th ranks. So, the space immediately above d4 is e4, for example.

You can agree on almost everything, certainly to make the game playable and programmable. Regardless of that, I can only say my point of view and describe my intentions.

"A switch is an overlapping pair of spaces that in some ways operate together as a single space."

From my point of view it looks different. The square a4 of a switch is an independent square and is completely identical to the square a4 in normal chess. 4 (A4) is a composite square consisting of a half and triangle part of a4 and the new triangle due to board geometry. The new square 4 (A4) gets the same play options as all squares of the game board - 4 (A4) is considered equal.

This means that the squares a4/4 (A4) must first be seen independently. These independent fields get an additional function when they work together and act as a switch, as described.

My intention is therefore not compatible with the proposal to merge fields 4/a4 (A4) as proposed by Jean-Louis.

It is possible to agree on the sides from which the switch should be accessible. We have clarified access from below and from the side, access from above is also not a problem and is already part of my proposal. The only question is whether it is access to the switch as a unit or to the individual square of a switch. According to my intention, the second applies.

"Allow pieces access to the spaces of a switch from any direction, and when a piece moves to a switch, allow capture of any piece on the switch even if the capturing piece moves to the other space. For example, if a bishop is on A4, and a Rook moves to a4, consider the Bishop on A4 to be captured."

As described, access to the switch from all sides is not a problem. It is possible to agree on the proposal, but it does not fit my intention. However, if the game becomes more playable and programmable - so what.

To the Knight: I can't allow anything here, but I can say what my point of view is. If we stick to the fact that the squares of a switch should be seen separately, then knight moves ending on the same line are not possible. However, as the game becomes more playable and programmable, compromises should be possible.

"One last rule change I would suggest is to let Rooks, Queens, and Kings use their ability to move horizontally to switch between the spaces constituting the switch. This would basically involve lifting one more restriction on movement to the spaces making up a switch. "

I have problems with that. I have emphasized that the squares of a switch represent independent squares. This would rather mean that moves between the squares of a switch are possible. The independence of the squares on the one hand and the functionality of a switch on the other compete with each other. Regarding the direct change between the squares of a switch, I tend towards the superordinate function, so a direct change should not be possible. At least that's my intention. But here, too, compromises determine reality.

You're right. I have disregarded the change between the 4th and 5th rank. I fell into my own trap :).

"A switch is an overlapping pair of spaces that in some ways operate together as a single space."

From my point of view it looks different. The square a4 of a switch is an independent square and is completely identical to the square a4 in normal chess. 4 (A4) is a composite square consisting of a half and triangle part of a4 and the new triangle due to board geometry. The new square 4 (A4) gets the same play options as all squares of the game board - 4 (A4) is considered equal.

This means that the squares a4/4 (A4) must first be seen independently. These independent fields get an additional function when they work together and act as a switch, as described.

I didn't say anything different. We're in agreement that the spaces composing a switch are separate from each other. But since they cannot be simultaneously occupied, and occupation of one space blocks movement through the other, and they share a common edge and a common corner, they also function in some ways like the same space.

It is possible to agree on the sides from which the switch should be accessible. We have clarified access from below and from the side, access from above is also not a problem and is already part of my proposal. The only question is whether it is access to the switch as a unit or to the individual square of a switch. According to my intention, the second applies.

Agreed. Use of the switch as a switch is possible only from below. That is due to the nature of how it works. If a piece moves to a switch through a diagonal move or a Knight move, it will have to stop on the switch, which will prevent it from using the switch to alter the direction of its movement. The same is true if a Rook or Queen moves to a switch from the side. It will have to stop there, which will prevent its use as a switch. And if a Rook or Queen moves to a switch from above, it will have only one path through the switch. So, it won't be utilizing the switch as a switch. This shows that access to the spaces composing a switch is a completely different matter than using it as a switch.

"Allow pieces access to the spaces of a switch from any direction, and when a piece moves to a switch, allow capture of any piece on the switch even if the capturing piece moves to the other space. For example, if a bishop is on A4, and a Rook moves to a4, consider the Bishop on A4 to be captured."

As described, access to the switch from all sides is not a problem. It is possible to agree on the proposal, but it does not fit my intention. However, if the game becomes more playable and programmable - so what.

What I'm proposing fits with the rule that both spaces of a switch cannot be occupied at the same time and the rule that occupancy of either space blocks vertical movement through the switch even when that movement would technically be going through the other space in the switch.

To the Knight: I can't allow anything here, but I can say what my point of view is. If we stick to the fact that the squares of a switch should be seen separately, then knight moves ending on the same line are not possible. However, as the game becomes more playable and programmable, compromises should be possible.

We could just say that because of the way that switches affect the geometry of the board, some spaces may be reached by either a vertical move or a Knight move. This would also correct the injustice done to the Knight of making the weakest piece even weaker around a switch while it gives all other pieces greater mobility.

"One last rule change I would suggest is to let Rooks, Queens, and Kings use their ability to move horizontally to switch between the spaces constituting the switch. This would basically involve lifting one more restriction on movement to the spaces making up a switch. "

I have problems with that. I have emphasized that the squares of a switch represent independent squares. This would rather mean that moves between the squares of a switch are possible.

Precisely.

The independence of the squares on the one hand and the functionality of a switch on the other compete with each other. Regarding the direct change between the squares of a switch, I tend towards the superordinate function, so a direct change should not be possible.

Allowing a piece that can move horizontally to move from one space to the other in a switch as a normal move does not affect the functioning of the switch. While the piece is on either space, other pieces can't pass through the switch, and once the piece leaves the switch, pieces will be able to pass through it again.

Just to make sure I fully understand this:

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 only thing that 'switches' are the connections of 4/a4 to the upper board half. These are either to a5 (f) and b5 (fr), or to a5 (fl), b5 (f) and c5 (fr). And the switch is only in a determined state when 4/a4 is occupied. (And that state has to be chosen as part of the move that occupies it.) When the square is empty you can use all the connections to enter it from above, or to leave it in the same move when you entered it from below.

The intepretation of this that I consider conceptualy the simplest is that 4/a4 is indeed a single square cell, but that the setting of the switch is extra game state. Which can conveniently be indicated by placing the piece that occupies it in the right or left half of the cell, as the distinction only has to be made when the square is occupied. In a computer implementation one could implement the state of the switch through making separate cells of 4 and a4, with only single exits to 5th rank, and duplicate the exits to it from a3 (f), b3 (fl) and b4 (l) so that one connects to 4, the other to a4, both available at any time. But that still would require some 'unnatural' treatment of the spaces 4/a4, to consider one blocked when the other is occupied.

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.

"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.

During the night I changed my mind on one of my rule suggestions. I had proposed allowing capture of a piece on the occupied space of a switch when a piece moves to the unoccupied space of a switch. This was to fit in with rules regarding no double occupancy of switches and blocking any movement through the switch when one space in it is occupied. These happen to be the most difficult rules to program, and I don't think they're really essential to the concept of a switch. So, I'm going to program a stripped-down version of Chess66 that I'll call Reroute66. 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'll get to work on it later in the day.

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.

As I understand it, Fergus has decided to program a variant based on yours, and given it a different name to signal that it's not the same game. As a game in itself yours remains intact (and probably eventually publishable too if and when the Editorship approves), just more difficult to program given the primitives that Game Courier provides.

This game differs from yours only in that both a4 and 4, or both 5 and h5, can be occupied/passed through simultaneously. As such those spaces connect to the rest of the board in the same way they do already, they just stop being a ‘switch’ in the railway sense (aka a ‘set of points’ in my native British English, or German ‘Weiche’ as used in your original German page) and become just an unusual topological/geometrical feature of the board.

I'll admit I find it a little odd that such conditionally untraversible squares should be so difficult to implement (couldn't it be done with uncapturable dummy pieces that appear and disappear as the other square is occupied and vacated?), but I'm not a programmer and I've never had a go at writing GAME Code, so…

One way to program it would be to have a single square 4/a4, and to introduce a number of extra piece types, each especially adapted to have the moves that the switches would allow. That is, you would have a special Rook for on a3, which would move forward both as a normal Rook, or with a move that switched file after one forward step. (And for a2 one that switched after 2 forward steps, etc.) When a piece of this Rook family would land on an edge file you make it automatically 'promote' to the kind of Rook that belongs on that square. When a Rook landed on a4 there would be a kind of promotion choice: it either stays/becomes a normal Rook, or one that replaces its forward move by a Left-Griffon move. Same idea for the other piece types.

I suppose that through this method I could even have the Interactive Diagram play Chess66. A user-supplied JavaScript function WeirdPromotion would take care of the 'promotions'.

As I understand it, Fergus has decided to program a variant based on yours, and given it a different name to signal that it's not the same game.

Exactly this.

This game differs from yours only in that both a4 and 4, or both 5 and h5, can be occupied/passed through simultaneously.

There are some other differences. Here's a link: Reroute66. The rules are described below the board. I'll add individual piece descriptions to the rules later.

I'll admit I find it a little odd that such conditionally untraversible squares should be so difficult to implement (couldn't it be done with uncapturable dummy pieces that appear and disappear as the other square is occupied and vacated?)

That's the solution I already proposed. But I also think these rules are not essential to the core concept of the game, and I wanted to start with a variant that does not include them.

Does that mean my variant is history? Or have I misunderstood something?

No, it means I am working on my own variant instead of putting pressure on you to change yours. You're free to go with the rules you want for your game. I'll see what I can do about programming it once you have settled on the rules and have described them clearly.

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.

I mean I am retaining the geometrical properties of the switches, but I am discarding the other rules regarding them.

"...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).

From the questions and expressions of confusion you got regarding what the rules are, it should be evident that you have not described them clearly enough. Also, you seemed to change your mind about some details in the comments. So, you should rewrite your rules to reflect anything you have changed your mind on and to supply the details that someone would currently have to read the comments to find out about.