[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
Joe Joyce wrote on Tue, May 30, 2006 02:27 AM UTC:A very interesting piece, but I'm not sure of its valuation at 4, exactly midway between rook and knight. I admit it's a crippled chancellor, but is it reduced that much? I would suspect it's more powerful than a guard, say, which is also valued at 4. And while the knight component is a weaker piece, I'm not sure the elk should be valued at less than a rook. I'd guess it in the 5-7 range. I'd think a player's tendency would be to use the knight move to post the piece in an advantageous position for the rook and let it passively exert power for a while. And I'd be inclined to move it like a dabbabah, staying on black squares as much as possible to get the greater power; just using the knight move to leap over pieces to get in and out. Admittedly you've made the elk's knight component colorbound - no elknight can attack white squares - but the rook component can attack any square on the board. Can't see how it's not in the neighborhood of 6. But then, I'm far from an expert :-) and have been wrong before. And speaking of being wrong, would it be wrong for me to suggest considering making a few themed pieces and creating a game around them? You're very creative with pieces, but replacing 1 FIDE piece with your new piece and playing from there is kind of just training you in using the new piece. You are showcasing pieces rather than creating a whole new game. Replace the knights with elks instead of the rooks - another new game, with a little more power. Since the knight component is colorbound, replace the bishops with elks and get a different game still. This soon becomes unsatisfying; there are a zillion pieces out there which can somehow fit, but it becomes a slightly different FIDE game rather than a truly unique variant. Hey, don't sell your pieces short. Give them a standout game to be in. Enjoy.
Joe, the evaluation of the Elk builds on tests with Zillions. Zillions internal evaluation algorithm places its value between a knight and rook. It is quite logical because it is not a knight *and* rook. It is a knight *or* rook. Hence its value is the average of 3 and 5. However, as its knight capabilities are reduced (it cannot jump to white squares) its value should be less than 4. But the Elk's maneuverability makes its rook capabilities more useful. This increases its value to around 4. I suppose it's logical. It is true that I have chosen the simple method of exchanging a piece in the Fide setup. It is much easier to test a piece in a well-known context. Moreover, the result happens to be quite fun and interesting. New tactical and strategical aspects are introduced. But please feel free to use the new pieces in more ambitious game constructs. Due to its relative low evaluation it is a very useful piece. Comparatively, a Chancellor isn't very useful. Its value is so great so you can't use it very much, except exchanging it for an enemy Chancellor or queen. --Mats
Joe, I followed your suggestion and replaced the knights with Elks, instead of the rooks. It's implemented as a variant in my Elk Chess. It seems to work fine, too. I think it has to do with the fact that the Elk's value is on a par with the other pieces. If one introduces Chancellors to the Fide setup, I don't think the game would work very well.
--Mats
(and now I've uploaded a bugfixed version)
--Mats
(and now I've uploaded a bugfixed version)
Doug, Yes, in the variant where Elks replace the rooks. --Mats
Joe Joyce wrote on Tue, May 30, 2006 03:27 PM UTC:The replacement of the knights with elks basically *had* to work, as would the rook-elk swap [similar pieces in the same spot]. The replacement of bishops by elks is a bit cludgier, but gives a hint of a theme. Replace the bishops with elks and the queen with a chancellor (R+N). Give the king a knight escape move instead of castling. Now you've got a bishopless game that is fairly close to FIDE in power - if your elk valuation is correct, within roughly a pawn's worth of power. [This might make for a decent CWDA army.] It may not be the best of games, but it's a coherently themed game, and showcases the elk equally as well as the FIDE version. You'd offer your 'Elk Chess' as a training game for the elk, and a themed game as the 'actual' variant. This way you're sneaking 2 games in under the guise of 1, and you've done what you wanted. You showcased the piece, and you got the alternate FIDE game into the mix. But you've also taken that one step more and designed a game as well as a piece. I believe you commented somewhere that you thought the elk and scorpion would work well together. Come up with another new piece or three, [maybe the squire/jumping general/mammoth could fit in] and give us a new game. Of course, if I had some really cool new pieces that worked great in FIDE, I wouldn't listen to some old guy who wants it done another way either. ;-) Keep the pieces coming anyhow. Enjoy
Hello Mats, why do you not use an other name for your new piece? 'Elk' (German 'Elch')is already the name for a known fairy chess piece (look at 'http://www.softdecc.com/pdb/pieces.pdb?langt=EN&langn=EN'). There is already a lot of confusion because of the existence of different names for same pieces, but the situation becomes extrem mistakably by using same names for different pieces. Alfred Pfeiffer P.S.: This remark is valid also for other new pieces you introduced, e.g. 'http://www.chessvariants.org/piececlopedia.dir/scorpion.html' describes an other 'Scorpion', and maybe also the name 'Mammoth' is already used by fairy chess composers (but I do not know their definition).
Alfred, I don't think it matters much that names sometimes collide. If I search the Internet, and check the Encyclopedia of Chess Variants, then I will find that all the good names are already taken. If the name 'Scorpion' had already been used by an established chess variant, then I would have chosen another name. But the 'Scorpion King' is more of a phantasy piece,it's fun, but will surface very rarely. I did not know about the 'Elch', but it seems like it hasn't even been implemented in a game(?). Then it's no problem at all. I can employ that name for a piece that is likely to be more successful than the 'Elch'. In chess it is common rule that it's not the first inventor of a variation that has the right to the variation name. The variation receives the name of the chessplayer who has employed the variation, analysed it, played it, and put down a great deal of work in it. Anybody could invent opening variations 'en masse'. This does not mean that they belong to this chess player and that ECO should relate his name. It's the same thing with chess pieces. Anybody could invent chess pieces. But that's not enough. He has to employ them in a game construct, etc. And when it has become established and well-known, then the piece name is fully established, too. I don't think anybody would name their new pieces Chancellor or Archbishop, for instance.
Mats, I have to rehabilitate you partially because I read now that in the
anglophone countries the problem friends use the denotation Moose for
that piece which was named as elk in the cited source (from Germany),
look e.g. to 'http://homepage.ntlworld.com/gpjnow/VC.htm'.
But here are fairy chess definitions for some others of your animals:
'Elephant': Queen+Nightrider, used also in some game variants,
e.g. 'Wolf Chess'
(http://www.chessvariants.org/large.dir/wolf.html)
'Mammoth': moves like a rook but only if it can capture
(from A. M. Dickins: A guide to fairy chess.)
Alfred PfeifferHi Mats, your definition of 'Elk Chess' generates an asymmetry in the possibilities for the initial position: White can develop immediately its elk on the king side with a knight move to the row in front of its pawn, Black cannot do so. At the queen side the situation is inverse. You could reach easily symmetry by a little change in the rules: - for white swap the colors when the elk has to move as knight/rook; - for the black elk let the definition as it is. (Also a converse definition would be possible, depending at which wing you prefer a quick development of this piece.) Shortly you could summarize this new rule as follow: The Elk moves at squares of its own color like a rook, at squares of the opposite color as a knight (or the converse regulation). Alfred Pfeiffer
Alfred, I think the asymmetry in Elk Chess is probably good.
It creates a strategical tension, and castling will tend to be
on different wings. Moreover, should it not be asymetric, then
the Elks would tend to be exchanged immediately, e.g.,
1.Eg3 Eg6.
Concerning the Elephant (in my Elephant Chess), this is not
my invention. It derives from time-honoured Burmese Chess,
where it is called Elephant, and it also exists in Shogi, where
it is called Silver General.
--Mats
It creates a strategical tension, and castling will tend to be
on different wings. Moreover, should it not be asymetric, then
the Elks would tend to be exchanged immediately, e.g.,
1.Eg3 Eg6.
Concerning the Elephant (in my Elephant Chess), this is not
my invention. It derives from time-honoured Burmese Chess,
where it is called Elephant, and it also exists in Shogi, where
it is called Silver General.
--Mats
Joe Joyce wrote on Thu, Jun 1, 2006 05:01 AM UTC:Hi, Mats. Shouldn't I at least get honorable mention on your Elk Chess page for coming up with Elk Chess II? ;-) Joe
Joe, no that does not qualify to be mentioned! But I am still not convinced that the notion of Elks together with Rooks works that well. What are the Rooks supposed to do when the Elk takes control of an open file? They can't oppose because the rook is worth more than the Elk. However, I later found out that, thanks to Elks, one can play on the wings instead and temporarily ignore the open files. So it's possible that this variant works anyway. Time will tell. --Mats
Hello Mats, you wrote
Notwithstanding I propose you to introduce both types of the Elk
(of course this needs slightly different graphics to distinguish them):
I think the asymmetry in Elk Chess is probably good.Your arguments are plausible and the opinion is to accept.
It creates a strategical tension, and castling will tend to be on different wings.
Moreover, should it not be asymetric, then the Elks would tend to be exchanged immediately, e.g.,
1.Eg3 Eg6.
Notwithstanding I propose you to introduce both types of the Elk
(of course this needs slightly different graphics to distinguish them):
- the B/W-Elk: it moves on the black squares as rook, but on the white squares it jumps like a knight
(this is the actual used type); and - the W/B-Elk: it moves on the white squares as rook, and on the black squares it leaps like a knight
(I proposed this type for the white pieces).
With this two types you may build easily different setups (symmetric or not, first move as knight or not).
Did you consider to apply this new method (different move possibilities
depending on the color of the square)
to other combinations of pieces, e.g.
- Elk pawns: move (when not capturing) as pawn or as knight (forward only), capture always diagonal;
- a Rook/Nightrider piece (how to name it?)
Alfred Pfeiffer
Alfred, I think I will have a break now. If you have a good game idea you could always ask somebody at the Zillions site to implement it. Sometimes they will. --Mats
Joe Joyce wrote on Fri, Jun 2, 2006 01:05 AM UTC:Alfred, I think we've been dismissed. But that's okay, because I've been thinking. I've come up with a couple new pieces. I'm calling them the NightRunner and the BishopRunner. The NR moves like a knight or a rook, depending on the color of the square the piece is on. There are, of course, two complimentary types. The BR moves like a bishop or a rook, depending on whether the number of squares the piece last moved was even or odd. Again, there are complimentary types. I like these pieces, I think there's a great future for them. I'm going to add them to my Jumping General, a new piece I discovered last year. It slides 1 or jumps 2 in any direction (orthogonally or diagonally). The JG isn't going to be just big, it's going to be mammoth! Now just between you and me, Alfred, I was inspired by your idea, but I don't know whether or not to give you any credit. After all, I expanded on the idea and made it uniquely my own. What's that? Eric Greenwood's Squire is my jumping general, and he used it in Rennaissance Chess over a quarter century ago, and it's still being played? Well, maybe he might get some credit. I put it up to all. What does everybody think? Credit, or no credit?
Joe, I don't know what got you upset. If it was the trivial idea of replacing the knights with Elks, I had already investigated that before you proposed it, and I had dismissed it, for reasons I already told. But when you proposed it again I investigated it again, and decided to add it as a variant. There is too much touchiness in this forum sometimes. I have not claimed that the Mammoth is my invention. I say on my homepage, and in my zrf:s that '...The Mammoth piece (also called Mastodon) is not entirely new. Under other names it appears as the queen analog in Grand Shatranj and as the royal piece in Atlantean Barroom Shatranj. In EV Greenwood's Renniassance Chess (not misspelt) from 1980, the piece is named Squire.' So these allegations directed against me are false. Other inventors have already acquired the Squire and renamed it, before I did so. Probably they had no idea that the Squire existed. Moreover, the demand that I should have to check up every obscure fairy piece in all kinds of publications, before I appropriate a piece name, is ridiculous. Anyway, I now leave this forum because there is a very strange underlying enmity here. I feel no need to put up with it. --Mats
Aw-w, c'mon, guys; de gustibus non disputandum est.
Joe Joyce wrote on Fri, Jun 2, 2006 04:30 PM UTC:James, you're right. I argued emotionally instead of logically, and created a public display of irritation and bad manners. I hereby apologize to everyone. I should not have done it. I will do my best to avoid such things in the future. Joe
Joe Joyce wrote on Fri, Jun 2, 2006 06:11 PM UTC:Mats, I must start with an apology. My statement was emotional and rather over-the-top, instead of reasonable. I'm sorry. I should not have posted that statement. I was wrong to do so. And my display of bad manners makes my arguments about your conduct far more difficult to prosecute either successfully or comfortably. Nevertheless, I will attempt to explain where our differences lie. I will copy some of the CV comments: 2006-05-30 Mats Winther Verified as Mats Winther None Joe, I followed your suggestion and replaced the knights with Elks, instead of the rooks. It's implemented as a variant in my Elk Chess. It seems to work fine, too. I think it has to do with the fact that the Elk's value is on a par with the other pieces. If one introduces Chancellors to the Fide setup, I don't think the game would work very well. --Mats (and now I've uploaded a bugfixed version) 2006-06-01 Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce None Hi, Mats. Shouldn't I at least get honorable mention on your Elk Chess page for coming up with Elk Chess II? ;-) Joe 2006-06-01 Mats Winther Verified as Mats Winther None Joe, no that does not qualify to be mentioned! But I am still not convinced that the notion of Elks together with Rooks works that well. What are the Rooks supposed to do when the Elk takes control of an open file? They can't oppose because the rook is worth more than the Elk. However, I later found out that, thanks to Elks, one can play on the wings instead and temporarily ignore the open files. So it's possible that this variant works anyway. Time will tell. --Mats [end of quotes] Quite a change in attitude in a very short period of time. Another quote: 2006-06-02 Mats Winther Verified as Mats Winther None Joe, I don't know what got you upset. If it was the trivial idea of replacing the knights with Elks, I had already investigated that before you proposed it, and I had dismissed it, for reasons I already told. But when you proposed it again I investigated it again, and decided to add it as a variant. [eoq] If the variant is that trivial and you had already investigated and dismissed it, why include it in your game? Especially without noting its poorness? If it was worth including in the game, it was worth crediting. You are trying to have it both ways. I object to that general attitude. Further, you have changed your page to include references and links to everyone but me - thanks! That was a good laugh. (Seriously, I did laugh; it reminded me so much of work.) That you went back and changed your pages after I made my comments says something about the relative merits of our positions. Here, I must apologize again. That I implied you gave no credit at all was wrong and misleading. This is where I went over the top. You did, when you became aware of their existance, name the games that contained the Squire. I will state here that I do not remember any designers names associated with the games you credited on your Mammoth Chess page when I looked at it a few days ago. Again, I state this is wrong. Cavalier expropriation of ideas and a reluctance to credit either sources or original creators coupled with a dismissive and condescending attitude first made me seriously consider saying something. But, finally, it was your dismissive and condescending statements toward others that prompted me to respond. Telling Alfred Pfeiffer to, in effect, run along and stop bothering you as you no longer have the time to bother with chess was what got me irked enough to write. Mr. Pfeiffer wrote a nice expansion of your initial idea, adding details that clearly could enhance the game. You said: 2006-06-01 Mats Winther Verified as Mats Winther None Alfred, I think I will have a break now. If you have a good game idea you could always ask somebody at the Zillions site to implement it. Sometimes they will. --Mats [eoq] Now run along home like a nice boy - not. I'm a New Yorker. I know when I've been dissed, and when others have. I do not like to be in this position, but, as it occurred in a public forum, I felt and still feel it must be addressed publicly. In a forum like CV, all we have are our ideas and our willingness to work. Everybody should be credited, no matter how trivial the idea or how invisible the work. That everybody plays in good faith should be a fundamental principle of this site. This is my main position, and I have no hesitation in asking every member of this site to weigh in on this question. This post is already too long. While there is much more I wish to say, I will sum up my 2 main points: I apologize for my improper emotional post, it should not have happened. Give credit where it is due, and it's due if you are aware, or should be, of the existance of a reason to give it. Finally, I will say again that you are an excellent piece designer (although I think you need to work a little on game design); and I'd much rather we played nice together. Joe Joyce
Well, y'know, we can all get hot sometimes about things we care about; welcome to humanity. Shucks, now I'll have to take back all the rotten things I said about you to my cat. That's so sad because it confuses him, and when he gets confused he's hard to deal with; he already thinks I'm a sap. (smilie)
Joe Joyce wrote on Sat, Jun 3, 2006 01:27 AM UTC:Thanks, James, for welcoming me to the human race. It means a lot to me; I was a postal supervisor, and retired as an EAS17. You may be the first person in decades to consider me human. I really appreciate this. ;-) Please, don't tell the cat and confuse him! My wife is an animal lover and I wouldn't want to upset her. And I'm allergic to cats anyway, so I could probably deal with being hated by yours. So tell him we have 3 dogs among the menagerie. This way he'll always feel justified. Enjoy. Joe
Hi, Joe; interesting, my brother's VOMA Greensboro, finishing out 30; didn't want to go management because he likes his soul too much. Kitty says he's allergic to you, too; three dogs! Fer shame.. Dogs have masters, cats have staff. Hey, how 'bout a 'Postal Chess' variant? Lessee, pieces are the Inspector, Supervisor, Letter Carrier, Mailbox Lurker, Mean Dog and Wild-Eyed-Laid-Off-Just-Divorced-Guy-With-An-AK.
Wild-Eyed-Laid-Off-Just-Divorced-Guy-With-An-AK. Hmmmmmmmm. That's the piece that once it starts capturing, it keeps on capturing. And it takes several pieces to capture it.
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.
The elk (amer. 'moose') has actually been trained for battle service, in the cavalry of Charles XII of Sweden (1682-1718). Elks are much faster and more powerful than horses. However, it proved a time-consuming and costly task to train elks so the project was abandoned.
I implemented a zrf called Elk Chess.
--Mats