Comments by CharlesDaniel

I see no reason the dropped piece is 'FORCED' to make an entry soon. That makes the game more contrived and less flexible. If anything it is preferable to leave that up to the players. A good player will be smart enough to know that the opponent will eventually introduce the new piece. If a player is good enough to play without the piece he/she can dos so knowing that the option to introduce it still remains.

By the way your description for Pioneer Chess is faulty. IF White turns down the piece and Black overrules - no game can be played - both players disagree on what game to play.

I am not sure why this method of dropping into the back rank was chosen. Its quite possible that white will have an even greater advantage because of this. Better to make the drop  as a separate turn. This seems more logical and slows it down a tad.  
Also I just realized I had commented on this item before. Looks to me that the ability to drop ninja pawns in addition to the rook-knight and bishop -knight might actually be more interesting perhaps 2 or 4, not sure.
The Rook-knight and bishop knight drop into empty space in backrank in separate turn. The ninja pawns can drop into vacant space in second rank and optionally push forward to center. The ninja pawns will move like pawns except for enpassant and ability to move 1 space sideways and also capture sideways in enemy half of board. 

At this point this variant has failed miserably even more so than gothic which i believe is far superior (and actually in retrospect quite a good variant). Perhaps the version I suggest above might be interesting - I wouldn't mind trying it. I may create a preset and send out a challenge. 


As to why does regular Chess have on the order of 10^4 to 10^6 times more followers than variant chess ..
Chess variants are parallel universes - completely unexplored with weird rules /laws and strange configuration. The regular chess universe is still unexplored and overwhelming for most despite the oversaturation of opening theory at top GM level. 
Chess variants are for those with moderate to little interest in regular chess and with no desire to compete with regular chess players. I doubt if there are currently is any 2100+ rated (at present) chess player interested in variants. Seirawan himself must have lost interest in his own variant just like Bobby Fischer lost interest in FRC. 

2100 chess rating is approximately the elo at which opening theory becomes tedious since many lines do have to be memorized. Some may say its even higher than that. Below 2100 and memorizing opening theory is not terribly important - understanding openings is of course a different matter. 

It is important that the chess variant community understand that nothing is to be gained by proposing to 'fix' chess or to 'convert' chess followers. 
Chess variants instead must attract the type of person who does not want to dedicate to one game and likes a chess-like family of games. Of course high rated players disillusioned with the game will be welcome but they must come on their own. 

Rather than harp on the nonexistent 'flaws' of chess, it is better to show how interesting it is to play a game of chess in which a few properties are changed. Board size, pieces etc making in many cases a radically different but still vaguely familiar game of chess. This is the appeal of chess variants. Think HORSE in poker - tournament of a family of poker games. 

A chess tournament like this can take place here too. The recent Cv Potluck  was a good start, and SHOULD BE DONE AGAIN.

Maybe one day the parallel universes of chess might appeal to a totally new audience. From that certainly a few chess variants will immediately spring to mind in the general populace just as orthodox  chess does now.

Thanks for your comment Jose. In response to your question - The bishops are already a bit stronger on a 10x10 board so maybe don't need improving, while a regular knight is a bit weaker. On 10x10, Zillions rates the wazir-knight a half pawn more than the bishop and the regular knight almost a pawn less than the bishop. So WN=B+1/2P; B=N+P; WN > FN > B > N

Sorry George, 
But no one cares about your  patent. And the only piece you invented is far less original than the very many I have invented or derived from other pieces. 

What I do know from playtesting Asylum Redux, Octopus Chess and Zigzag madness is that the gameplay is far more satisfying than your clunky  falcon game. 

Still your comments are quite amusing esp your reference to yourself as 'we' . 


Keep up the good work.

George Duke, thank you for your comment, but there are many inaccuracies in them that I shall address.

Firstly, there never is and never shall be any need for an inventor to " acknowledge" every instance of "similar" piece that ever existed. In a few instances as in your persistent bringing up of this flawed “airplane” piece, there is absolutely no connection. I have always stated that the Flying Bomber owes its existence to Checkers / Draughts (and which probably the airplane piece too is derived from)

Secondly, since my ZigZag Bishop/Rook differs from the Duke/Cavalier in as much degree as your Falcon does from the Bison, there is no reason why I must bend over backwards and chastise myself for simply using the word “new”. I certainly haven’t patented the piece – and I suspect I could if I wanted to.

Thirdly, I never suggested nor agreed to have delayed evaluations - that suggestion was made by another poster.

You are free to mention what you think are similar pieces, but ultimately it is up to the inventor to state his/her inspiration regardless of whether you think he/she is being truthful or not.

I sincerely hope that others will continue where I left off – which is mainly adding one or two pieces to 10x10 board and strive for balanced gameplay.

Hey Claudio, 

Thanks for the rating but I am afraid I do not follow you. 

Your previously mention:  'But, looks to me that is a template, as the snake. A template that can be applied to the various atoms and generals.'

I guess you are right, this template or formula can be applied to other types of pieces. Of course I used this idea in Asylum Redux and Octopus Chess as well. 

I did not realize you were asking me a question. Would you care to elaborate on this a bit more?

Larry, thanks for your comments, they were most helpful in dealing with the confusion. 

I think the problem is the poster's unshakable belief that only the Boyscout can be a zigzag bishop  (even though I and some others may not find the term 'Bishop' as referred to the boyscout intuitive) 

I don't think the comments need to be reviewed or delayed as long as they are not overly obscene. As the site gets more popular, the quality of comments may very well decrease as in YouTube, but this is the price to pay so that anyone can voice their opinion.

To anonymous poster: I don't care too much for jargon and neither should anyone who is interested in playing this chess variant. If you had really wanted to contribute terminology, you could have just done it, I have no problem with that.  Instead you resort to attacking the variant while hiding as an anonymous poster. 
My chess variants are geared  more for the mainstream, which is why I try to avoid using jargon when simple words can do. Its a 2 path bent rider but only people in chess variants understand the term bent rider. 
2 path bent rider=crooked dual path slider. 
The word crooked is more readable for the general audience. 
The word Zig Zag is already proven to be corrrect in the sense, so this topic is now moot.

There is nothing counterintuitive about the array - the unprotected pawn is easily defended by the wazir knight in one move. 
If you look at the opening example you will also understand the starting positions of the ZigZag pieces 

Many chess variants have one or more unprotected pawns - why not criticize them as well?

Handicapping them close range does make them less powerful and more on par with the other pieces. However, there were other reasons: as I mentioned their minimum distance a camel or zebra move away, make their movement more  unique on this board. THe two new knights already have a  Ferz or  wazir in addition to  knight movement. The Zigzag Bishop/Rook are thus more susceptible to the knights and pawns. 

The piece values from the Zillions file (which will be up soon):

Wazir Knight - 13860 
Ferz Knight - 13287 
ZigZag Biship - 13914 to 11590
Zigzag Rook - 22078  to 17733
Rook - 17292 
Bishop 11613
pawn - 3620 
Ninja Pawn - 5915

Note that the minimum distance a ZigZag Bishop moves is a Zebra's move away: One orthogonal and TWO diagonally outwards. 

Think of it as a zig  then a zag followed by 1 or more spaces along the diagonal as a bishop. Or it slides 1 or more like a biship first and then zags 1 more in same direction and then zigs. 

ZigZag Rook's minimum distance is a camel's move away Two orthogonal and one diagonally outwards. 
So its 1 or more spaces as a Rook followed by a zig in same direction and then a zag. 
Or a Zag diagonally then a zig and then moves 1 space or more like a rook in same direction. 


So not only they cannot move to adjacent squares, they cannot move to squares a knight's move away. (This is unlike the duke and cavalier that can move a knight's move away.)

It IS a crooked slider and it is a zig zag motion as most people UNFAMILIAR with these pieces will understand it. 

e.g  One step orthogonal (zig) followed by two or more diagonally (zag) ..



Apparently you are just interested in semantics.

Larry, 
The problem with the regular pawns starting on the 3rd rank leaving the 2nd rank vacant (or filled with Ninja Pawns), is that this allows a double row of pawns which tends to clog the game  a bit I think. 
See Herculean and Hadean Chess in which the pawns are one row advanced with ninja pawns behind - its not too bad, but I was not too happy with that configuration in the end.
Many 10x10 variants do have start configurations with more than 2 rows but they normally use more powerful pieces not extra pawns. 
I think allowing extra pieces and pawns via gating/dropping allows more flexibility in the setup and keeps the original configuration more harmonious. 
Because the Ninja Pawns have to be dropped in the 2nd rank, the player is forced to move the regular Pawns first, thus favoring more aggressive type openings and advanced pawn chains. 
As it stands, the Ninja Pawns reinforces the pawn structure that can extend right towards the middle or even into enemy territory.

Actually, the reality for ortho chess players is simply: 

'Every top chess player has his own way of dealing with the computer, to
use this incredible instrument in the most efficient way, for himself.'

The computer is simply an instrument that makes analyzing lines easier -
in the good old days, the GMs need to utilize the best seconds instead of
computers. Thus, in some cases you may not even need 'Seconds' to home
prepare. And many players can improve their game because of the computer.


In previous interview, Anand already explained that ortho Chess has a much
longer life than the doomsayers have predicted. 

And to clear up something - Computers have not mastered chess. It is
programmers who have mastered programming the computers to play chess. 

And since the majority of chess players have NOT mastered chess and are
NOT bored with it - this constant 'death of chess' topic is only brought
up by those who have given up chess or by weak players who do not
understand the game, have given up,  and  hate the game.