Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Holy cow! This is really really complicated!

I can't tell if it's good yet, but it sure as heck is complicated. I'll
have to read it three more times.

I think that EXISTENTIALIST CHESS is one of the most intriguing 
cv's I've ever come up with. Yes, it is complicated, but read 
through the rules a few times and eventually you'll get the hang
of it. One of the things that's fun about this game is all the
different combinations you can come up with from confabulating
the archer and zednick. Is the archer too powerful a piece?
Perhaps. One may be forced to give up one of their own powerful
pieces just to get rid of their opponent's archer. 

A few notes to add that I forgot to mention from the text:
A cannon's long jump move is done in a straight line either
horizontally or vertically but not diagonally. Though I didn't
intend it originally as such when I wrote it, so as to go along
with the literal description of the rule as stated, a dazzler
may not jump an enemy shield, either with the long cannon-like
jump (intended rule) or from 2 squares away (unintended rule).

There were a few typos in the text as originally posted, I've
sent in an email to the editors of this site pointing them out
asking them to correct them.

Captain Kirk, you're funny. I know what you mean, but I did not
set out to deliberately make a game that was overly complicated.
I just wanted to create a game with a lot of different pieces
and a lot of possibilities. I think that, by comparison, my game
is easier to follow than a game like THE GAME OF NEMOROTH 
which seems to me to be very hard to play and has pieces conflicting
each other all the time. 

Lastly I would like to add that I welcome anyone to email me
at [email protected] if you would like to play 
EXISTENTIALIST CHESS with me by email. We can submit an ASCII
diagram to each other with each move, though I would prefer to
play against people who have ZILLIONS OF GAMES and when a 
zrf file for this game is eventually posted to this page, use
it to record the positions of the game and only email each other
the moves, and not the diagram too.

This seems like a very complicated game. I rated it as 'none' because I
have no practical experience in  this game. I have not even imagined the
possibilities. It would be unrealistic for me to give it a rating. But I do
have comments (of course) ....... You have a good imagination. It seems a
bit much, but some pieces seem to have potential. I particularly like the
idea of the Hyena. I'm not too sure about the Archer though? And I'm not
too sure about this Confabulation theme? However, it does accomplish what
you appearred to have set out to accomplish ........ A game that is rich in
multiple possibilities. Really seems like a 'hard-thinking' game.

Michael

Well, since I already posted one comment and rated my game as 
'excellent' I won't tip the scales any further with additional
comments so I will rate this comment as 'none'

I am glad that some typographical errors to the text have been
corrected. Also some additional material was added in a place or two.

I am surprised that this game has not drawn more attention among
the avid enthusiasts of this site since it has been published.
I think that this variant is extremely intriguing and exciting.
One of the things which makes it so interesting is that it is up
for discussion as to what the best strategy to use in this game is,
especially as regards the archer and zednick. Do you confabulate
them as early as possible and commit yourself to one course of 
action, or do you wait a while, develop your pieces a bit, let the
game get into some rhythmic flow, see which way the wind blows a bit
before deciding where to confabulate these pieces? What is the best
use for the archer? What is the best use for the zednick? What value
does one give the new pieces compared to the traditional ones?
How strong can the existentialist be? How can one defend against 
the archer? It would probably take quite a bit of play-testing,
not just one or two games but literally ten or twenty to really
begin to get a feel for the game and get an answer to these questions.
I do not think this game is overly complicated, it's just that there
are so many different possibilities that it may be hard to keep track
of all of them.

I think part of the trouble with this variant, and the reason that people
hesitate to try it is the lack of a coherent theme, by theme I include 
abstract themes such as all pieces have abstract quality X. 

this game have various categories of pieces:

King : royal

Squire, Viceroy, Pawn, Crowned Knight, left/right schzzhi: normal, 
      i.e. no special powers but can be effected by others

Bobber: extending powers (to itself)

dazzler, hyenna : immobilizer

archer, zednick : confabulators

yanzee : invulnerable

extentialist : morph

teleporter: transports self.

I feel there's a excess of categories and overlap between the powers 
between the pieces. this game would be better I think if no two pieces
have the same higher power. for example having had the dazzler both 
hyenna and yanzee is somewhat superflous.

similarly archer is a more coherent piece than zednick which has 4 
unrelated powers, so it would be a better games without zednick.
A compromise would to give the power of the zednick to the bobber
which creates the stretegic tension of whether to keep the bobber 
around or to confabulate it with some other piece to increase that
piece's power.

I think the more constrained variant below might be easier to start 
with:

all the normal pieces and the king.

King : royal

Squire, Viceroy, Pawn, Crowned Knight, left/right schzzhi: normal

Dazzler: as the immobilizer and giver of invulnerability

archer: as the confabulator

bobber/zednick: moves as bobber or can confabulate as a zednick

teleporter: transports itself

extentialist: cycles through all the non-royal pieces, on 11th move it 
              sleeps, than another cycle, then explode.

I think I have preserved all the ideas in your game and simplified it
a bit. hope you find it interesting.

I'll omit a rating.  There are too many interesting concepts to be Poor,
but probably not enough cohesion or playability to truly merit Good. 
Actually, the bits and pieces of this game might well make two or three
variants of reasonable merit with better focus.

(I started to write a ZRF, but set it aside.)

I'm actually playing an email game of this with David Short, the inventor. 
We're only on move 8, too soon to have an opinion yet.  Mostly I'm trying
to figure out how to develop, and haven't really had to address most of
the special powers.
Note that a subset of this game was entered in the 84-Squares Contest as
Schizophrenic Chess.

I know that there are quite a few people who regularly visit this
site who have written ZRF files for new variants which are posted on
this site, so my question is directed to them. Has anyone had any
luck yet creating a ZRF for Existentialist Chess?
Please update us on your progress!

An unconfabulated archer can only move one square in a non-capturing 
manner, according to #12 in the FAQ -- does this mean it make a regular
move? The description of the archer seems to imply that it can't move at
all unless a friendly piece is next to it, and then it can only move to
confabulate with one of the friendly pieces next to it.

No. An unconfabulated archer (as well as an unconfabulated zednick),
when making a move where it is not confabulating itself with a friendly
piece, may move one square in any direction (horizontally, vertically
or diagonally). It may not capture enemy pieces when unconfabulated.
When confabulating with a friendly piece (besides the ones it is
restricted from merging with), it does so by moving one square in any
direction (horizontally, vertically or diagonally) into the square
occupied by the friendly piece. This completes the player's turn and the
opponent moves.
When an archer is confabulated with a friendly piece, that piece has
the option on any turn of making its regular move or firing an arrow
two squares in any direction (horizontally, vertically or diagonally)
killing the first enemy piece in its line of sight. See the rules for
restrictions on the archer's firing ability.

Keep in mind also that when an archer and zednick confabulate with
each other, its normal firing range is three squares. Keep the
following rules in mind: A hyena which is immobilizing a confabulated
archer piece may not make a regular move, and may only fire an arrow
at the hyena. This may seem pointless, to try to immobilize an archer
this way, unless the hyena can move with a discovered attack or
discovered check to give the opponent something to think about.
The exception to this is when a hyena is immobilizing the archer/zednick
piece, its range is cut back from three squares to two, although it
may freely shoot at any target it wishes to, not just the hyena. 

Sometimes it is necessary to read through the rules two or three
times until one has completely familiarized themself with them.

Incidentally, I was showing Existentialist Chess to a friend of mine
at my local chess club the other night, and he pointed out something
to me that I had not realized when I originally submitted the game.
It is impossible for a shield to come between a friendly and enemy
pawn in such a way that it could prevent en passant castling,
so the section I wrote about that can just be ignored. 

I welcome questions and comments about this game. I will always
be willing to answer them to the best of my ability.

After doing some more play-testing with John Lawson, we agreed that
another rule change is in order: The dazzler is the only piece that
is completely immune from the effects of a hyena. By making this
rule change, one can try to use their dazzler to get near a hyena,
and on a subsequent move, jump it and force it to move, force it
to release its spell on any and all pieces it was immobilizing.
This is an important counter-balance rule to prevent the hyena
from becoming overly powerful.

Incidentally I am accepting all challenges to play 
Existentialist Chess thru the following link:

http://play.chessvariants.com/pbm/presets/existentialistchesspreset.html 


This link will soon be added to the PBeM system of this web site.
My email for receiving challenges: [email protected]
my userid: davidnyjfan

Like Glenn, I cannot give your game a rating, but it is because I cannot
decide between Good or Excellent. The game looks very clever, and there is
a commendable attempt to bring in pieces of comparable value. I would like
to play it some later month/year, but I have a couple of criticisms, which
may or may not prove useful for future versions. (I take it for granted
that there will be future versions if there is playtesting enough.)
Two Zednicks would not be a luxury, at the expense of the Existentialist
or the Bobber. (Indeed, you have too many Queens. There are already two
Schizzies and promotable Yanzees (and Pawns). A third Queen type should be
a Cannon Queen or use baroque, non-rifle, capture.)
The Squire seems also a bit too strong, and I would prefer a simple Rook,
which would be a bit too weak. But too many pieces have a King's move. Or
did the Teleporters make it necessary?
However, the confabulations, the Dazzlers, the Hyena, the Schizzies and
the Teleporters make your game really interesting.

addendum: Player #1 puts Player #2's king in check. Player #2's
existentialist has previously made 19 moves. It is legal for Player
#2 to ignore the check on his king and move the existentialist for
the 20th time, only if the resulting blast either:

a) kills Player #1's king, in which case Player #2 immediately
wins the game

b) kills both kings, in which case the game ends in a draw

This maneuver is not legal if the explosion only kills the opponent's
archer confabulated to the king, for the opponent would then be able
to capture his king and win the game. He could, however, use this 
manuever to win the game if the enemy king's archer is on its forced 
rest move.

Is anyone watching my game with John Lawson in the Game Courier right now?

I urge you all to check it out, and see a practical application of it in
play. Once you get the hang of how the pieces move, you begin to see that
there
actually is some strategy to it and that it's really NOT that
complicated
or hard to learn or understand how to play it.

I didn't create the graphics for the Preset for Existentialist Chess,
Tony Quintanilla did. Perhaps Tony should talk to Peter Aronson
(who created the graphics for Schizophrenic Chess) and get the graphics
for the pieces which are common to both games from him and add them
to Existentialist Chess' preset. I don't know if he can change the
graphics to the preset without interfering with my existing game with
John Lawson. It may be necessary for him to create a second preset link
and later remove the first one (which is being used for my game with
John)
after my game is over.