Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

~~Earlier~~ ⇧Reverse Order⇩ ~~Later~~

Kriegspiel - Cincinnati Style. A description of Kriegspiel as played in Cincinnati in the 1970's, with a discussion of why those particular rules were used.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]

Mike Nelson wrote on Fri, Jun 14, 2002 04:22 PM UTC:Good ★★★★

On the whole, a significant improvement on standard Kriegspiel. 

A possible rule to distinguish 'No' from 'Nonsense': A move is 'nonsense'
if the player can determine it is illegal from the player's own position
and the referee's last announcement. No more remote inferences are
considered. 

Examples of detemining illegality from the announcement:
1. 'Black captures at d1' White attemting Ra1-g1 is nonsense.
2. 'Black checks on the long diagonal' White attempting to capture or
interpose on the file is nonsense.

On the other hand:
'Black captures at b1' on the previous turn, folowed by
'Black capures at d1' on the current turn, then
Ra1-g1 is nonsense but Ra1-c1 is no. (In fact, it could be legal as Black's
moves could have been Qxb1, Qxd1 or similar.)

gnohmon wrote on Sat, Jun 15, 2002 01:00 AM UTC:

It occurs to me that one might attempt to play Kriegspiel with Different
Armies. Of course, you don't know in advance what army the other player
has!

If the armies must be chosen from a short list of predefined armies, the
player who makes the first capture of a non-Pawn gets a big advantage of
knowledge (in addition to any material advantage). Perhaps this makes it a
bad game.

Michael Nelson wrote on Tue, Apr 15, 2003 06:42 PM UTC:

Cincinnati-style Kriegspiel should be playable by different armies--the
rules specify that only pawn/piece is announced for a capture, not which
piece.  The CWDA promotion rule needs to be modified to allow pawn
promotion only to pieces in one's own army--otherwise you would have to
know what army the other player is using to know your promotion choices.
(This weakens the Colorbound Clobberers a bit in the endgame--the CC's
often promote a pawn to the other side's Queen piece.)

Check announcements need consideration--what does the referee say if the
player is checked by a Camel? This is a Knightish type check, but not on
the same squares as would be indicated by 'check by Knight'.  A check
from a Half-Duck three sqaures away may still be 'on the file', but the
player's legal moves are different than if the same check were by a Rook
or Queen (interposing is useless, but retreating on the file may work.)

Perhaps the best check announcement rule for KWDA is simply to announce
'check' with no directional indication.

DrDave wrote on Fri, Oct 27, 2006 07:21 PM UTC:

The algebraic should read:

25. Rxe6 Bg2 26. Re5 Bh3

KUTGW

cheers

Anonymous wrote on Mon, Jan 18, 2010 02:09 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★

About 'nonsense':
One should opt to use a set of rules to decide nonsense moves, as no one
would like to do full retrograde analysis to an awkward pawn structure just
to decide between 'No' and 'Nonsense'...

5 comments displayed

~~Earlier~~ ⇧Reverse Order⇩ ~~Later~~

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.