[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
Nova Chess 100. Missing description (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
David Howe wrote on Sat, Oct 15, 2005 10:08 PM UTC:wow this looks great, obviously a lot of work has gone into making NovaChess. Graphics are cool, and so many fairy pieces, it is like a world of fairy chess! Lots of interesting and fun pieces too, and great with 2 kings! :)
Hi, Mike. I´ll be pleased if you send to me the new ZRF. I have tested old versions of this game, and my impression was hightly favourable. I´m curious about the new improvements. Best wishes. Roberto.
David Howe wrote on Sat, Dec 17, 2005 07:49 PM UTC:Michael,
You can reference the file you uploaded using the following URL:
../membergraphics/MSnovachess100/NovaChess100Release.zip
The other option is to create your own Zillions page for Nova Chess 100, and then we can link the two pages (the game page and the zillions page) together using the indexing system.
David Howe wrote on Sun, Dec 18, 2005 01:21 AM UTC:I have added a link. I put it at the end of the Notes section. You can go take a look at what I added to see how that works (for future reference). Feel free to modify the text as you see fit.
Perhaps I'm a bit too fond of counting things, but I tried to count the number of piece sets, and came up with 1492992 (using standard pieces) and 34992000 (using extended pieces). This led me to notice that the Armiger, Duke, and Earl are not listed in any family. If I add two of these pieces to the Knight family, then I get 1658880 and 38880000, but that still leaves one piece unfamilied.
I also count only 864 starting arrays.
Michael, In Case 2, 4 BCQ pieces must be placed on 4 squares (c1, d1, e1, d2), giving only 1 combination of filled squares. The same applies to Case 3. Removing this factor of 4 reduces Case 2 to 72 combinations and Case 3 to 144, making the total number 864, which matches the figure I found by counting in a somewhat different way. Nova Chess features a great many unusual and interesting pieces, but the pieces in any given set should be fairly easy to learn, and the game looks quite playable. Nevertheless, it will be a while before I've played all possible scenarios. ;)
'In Case 2, 4 BCQ pieces must be placed on 4 squares (c1, d1, e1, d2), giving only 1 combination of filled squares. The same applies to Case 3. Removing this factor of 4 reduces Case 2 to 72 combinations and Case 3 to 144, making the total number 864, which matches the figure I found by counting in a somewhat different way.' Yes, you are of course correct. Thank you, and I will update the webpage soon.
hey Michael, yes i think your right, 20 is too much, all the points you raised are true. Pieces need room to maneuver and room to combine. I've been looking at how many pieces should be used on a 10x10 lately, and it seems to me that 12 (that's counting king/kings) plays pretty good. i am hoping that 14 plays ok too, i think it does, but no doubt 12 is really good (anything over 14 and i think the game title should start with the word 'grand' he he). anyway, i'd be interested to know what you conclude about the piece count after you finish play-testing.
Ten Pawns on the third rank and fourteen other pieces was popular in the 10-Chess Variant Contest. I placed the 8 traditional pieces on the second rank and the remaining 6 on the first rank in TenCubed Chess. Greg Strong's Opulent Chess has Lions, with a dangerous 3-leaper move. So he gave his valuable K, Q, C, A pieces escape room on the first rank. Your 'multivariant' requires a fixed pattern of pieces, of course.
Truth is, most of us are lazy when it comes to examining someone else's work. Readers would pay more attention if you posted four sample variants, with some of your favorite pieces. You could use a 2x2 block of Courier Chess Preset diagrams (with GIFs reduced to 70 percent - like Greg did, I think).
Michael, I see many pieces in this game with notation like (W or F), (R or F), (W or B), Q - meaning they can attack all eight adjacent squares. I am inclined to cut this collection down to only five pieces: [1] N+W+F = Centaur, [2] B+W = Dragon Horse, [3] R+F = Dragon King, [4] R+B = Queen, [5] W+F+Pao+Vao = (new) Lioness. The first three pieces have long histories, covered in the Piececlopedia under the names used here. Your (old) Lioness combines [4] and [5], resulting in a piece that is just too strong for my taste. And I really think that the N+W+F (Champion in your game) should not be made any stronger - you list a bunch of other pieces that can make every move this piece can - to use your names: Admiral, Centaur, Chancellor, Explorer, General, and also the Basilisk.
Fergus Duniho's excellent variant 'Grand Cavalier Chess' gives each side a royal N+W+F, six more pieces that include the Knight's move, eight Cavaliers (Chinese Knights), plus a Queen and two Chinese Cannons. It bends the 'rules' of proper game design and gets away with it. But even this variant only has one N+W+F moving piece.
When I was designing Caissa Britannia (then called British Chess), which is distinguished by using a royal Queen, I created two pieces I called the Tank and Bazooka. The Tank moved and captured as a Rook or Cannon (equivalent to your Carronade), and the Bazooka moved and captured as a Bishop or Vao (equivalent to your Lictor). You may be aware that I never included these two pieces in the game. The reason I never included them is that even against a royal Queen, they seemed too powerful. If one of these pieces attacked another across an open line, the attack could not be blocked, and if one attacked across a screen, the attack could not be removed by removing the screen. Although this piece could not force checkmate against a lone King without assistance, it might too easily force checkmate in the opening game, or in this particular game too easily capture a royal piece. Thus, I tend to favor David Paulowich's position that the Lioness (which is equivalent to a Tank + a Bazooka), is too powerful a piece.
You have to remain true to your own philosophy. I now consider the Queen to be a flawed design and have spent the last 18 months studying a variety of weaker pieces in an attempt to find a middle ground between Shatranj and Chess. This naturally tends to color my comments on your variant.
New Years Resolutions: polish my HTML skills and (finally!) post pages for 'Unicorn Great Chess' and 'Lions and Unicorns Chess'. I plan to include a brief critical essay on my evolving design philosophy.
on the issue of pieces which are rook/pao or bishop/vao being too powerful... what if, as an alternative there were also rook/vao and bishop/pao pieces?...do such pieces already exist in nova chess?
14 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.