[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments by GeorgeDuke
Home page of The Chess Variant Pages. Homepage of The Chess Variant Pages.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Novo Chess. War game chess variant from the Netherlands, 1937. (12x8, Cells: 96) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]In 1937 Novo Chess became the first design to utilize all four modern fundamental game pieces Rook, Knight, Bishop and Falcon. On its ninety-six(96) squares (8x12), Novo's fourteen (14)piece types, each within certain special features, correspond to these more familiar game pieces: General,General Staff = King; Mil. Eng. Unit, Red Cross, Artillery, Tank = Rook; Airship, Bicycle Unit(up to 2 sqs)= Bishop; Ship, Submarine = Queen; Airplane = Knight; Motor Unit = Falcon; Infantry = Pawn; [Spy: all seven possible]. Great write-up of a game that actually achieved some popularity for a time.
Quintessential chess. Large chess variants, with some pieces moving with a sequence of knight moves in a zigzag line. (10x10, Cells: 84) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I rated Quintessential Chess as excellent in my group's voting toward finalists in 84-space contest. Jorg Knappen's previous article 'Nachtmahr' establishes Quintessence as probably the best of nightrider species. (The camel square being also next logical one after rook-knight-bishop coverage) Bishop-like pieces (Janus, Dragon Horse) are correct complements to challenging Quintessence maneuvers; only Leeloo can move rookwise. Seven piece types make long-term strategy manageable not whimsical. Pawn's bockspringen likely being new idea, Squirrel/Centurion completes the mix so as to cover all pawns initially. Great game.
Complete Permutation Chess. Game with all possible combinations of Falcon, Rook, Bishop and Knight on the back row. (16x8, Cells: 128) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]With reference to games patent coverage, 8x8 board size is not reserved in the Falcon Chess patent claims, so variant designers are free to use Falcon on the standard small board. Even in 8x10 or 10x10 there is no infringement with unusual piece mixes and Falcon. As ex., Beastmaster Chess' unifying concept of leaping pieces might be interesting combined with Falcon, Scorpion and Dragon on large boards 10-square or 12-square. George William Duke
Rococo. A clear, aggressive Ultima variant on a 10x10 ring board. (10x10, Cells: 100) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]The edge squares are essential for all the pieces since each can be swapped there, or end there in capturing, if only from another edge square. The Long Leaper is a more natural piece than say a Cannon, and in Rococo exceeded in value by two other pieces. My estimates: Immobilizer 10, Advancer 8, LL 7, Swapper 5, Chameleon 4, Withdrawer 3, Cannon Pawn 2. A Triangulator, as described, or Coordinator for that matter would not fit in well with this mix of pieces. CVP has about 2000 games the last time I checked, somewhat fewer than David Pritchard's Encyclopedia. Of course, there is substantial overlap, such as Ultima.
Pocket Polypiece Chess 43. Game with off-board pocket where all pieces of a type change when one piece of a type is moved normally. (7x6, Cells: 43) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Excellent for Jacks & Witches, having played one of the Courier J&W games by the same inventor. I tried Polypiece 43 too, and I think lack of clarity, the lately popular criterion for CVP's ratings, applies. However, Mark Thompson suggests in 'Defining the Abstract' that Clarity trades off with Depth, and PP43 is deep for under 64 squares, I would say; and its originality is high. The other tension Thompson sees is between Drama and Decisiveness, exchanging or played off one against the other to great extent; these third and fourth criteria for a well-designed game would come into play at the 73(72+Pocket) squares, well worth trying. Of course, Polypiece inventions go back to Ralph Betza (as all wisdom does), and Betza says in Polyp. article that there are 'hundreds of thousands of variants,' yet all Polypiece at root, meaning not just pieces but games. So, it can help to have standards besides popularity and polls. I prefer Cannon/Canon's flip at option in Jacks & Witches (and Ch. Larger Bd.), because clarity is not a problem where other pieces are not flipping, and J&W shows drama, decisiveness, and depth too.
Slide-shuffle. Variation of Shuffle Chess with special castling. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]A serious, reasonable suggestion in the randomizing back rank theme for Orthodox Chess. However-- allowing for some license to re-direct the subject matter to CVP entries-- Fischer-random, Shuffle-, or Slide-shuffle as methods for determining initial set-ups, can be adapted to most (90%+) of the 2000 chess variations listed in CVP. It would not be applicable to only one. And each starting array, being able to generate its own data base of specific games, could stand as a unique Game in itself. (Similar to Gothic Chess' considered switch of two pieces warranting its patents) Taking the mentioned 2880 starting positions as near the average, or rounding to 3000, there are now 6 million distinct variants available. Insofar as sheer numbers are the usual goal here, Ralph Betza's Polypiece concept of fluctuating piece powers generates at the very least 1000 cases per chess variant. Overlaying these makes 6 billion separate Sets of Rules. Further, coordinate pieces, hardly used at all to date beyond the time-worn King-Coordinator rank-file standard, could easily contribute another 10*3 factor: 6+ trillion game-play methods-- each capable of having own actual scores. If Orthodox Chess is up to 3 or 4 million of those, then such unique sets of rules (6x10*12), as attainable methods of play (the coequality of all forms ever being sacrosanct), may someday translate into near 25 quintillion games of Chess. [Or, supported by proposed novelties, factor in comparable quantities, mostly on order of 10*3, for Pawns, King moves, Castling rules, time controls, move-turn order, immobilization and reduction, and any twenty(20) other important parameters; then the Googol is in reach: a Googol chess variants and still more games...]
I do not think Michael Howe's comment entails 'sillyness' (sic), as he puts it. That is in fact what Howe offers the chess-playing public in Nova, up to 3x10*16 (quadrillions) versions of chess, none more recommended than another. No doubt there are many interesting,excellent games in there in Nova's programming enterprise. In contrasting approach, Grand, Omega, Gothic, Falcon, naming a few convenient examples, each seriously offer one well-considered variant. Intermediately, this Slide-Shuffle proposes 2880 unique set-ups--inevitably each one eventually developing its own theory-- as solution to the computer and opening theory problems facing Orthodox. However, such randomizing flies in the face of centuries of tradition of equal and constantly-initial-positioned forces.
Deployment. The initial setup of the pieces is open but hidden from the other player. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]A method of randomizing the back row on the (no longer?) sacrosanct 64 squares easily relates to Slide-Shuffle, also posted this week as solution to the Opening Theory, Draw, and Computer problems confronting Orthodox Chess. Suppose this Deployment only specially requires Bishops on opposite colour, as Slide-Shuffle; then each side has the 2880 possible arrays of Sl.Sh.: Deployment's not requiring mirror image here means (2880x2880) 8294400 possible initial set-ups, and opening theory is done away with. Except for Chess-Unequal-Armies games, a break from mirror-image starting array ordinarily entails switch of just two pieces, usually King and Queen. Random Chess, even Fischer's, is not new idea, going back 200 yrs. now; all these are copycats of Aaron Alexandre, author of 'Encyclopedie des Echecs'. Today Chaos Chess goes even step further in allowing deployment anywhere on board, so long as no checks present.
Gridlock. Large, wargame inspired variant. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]When using 'a Thief in the Knight', does it transfer the Field of Influence on all levels, or only take pieces out of Medusa's range? Is Armour pushed through Wall or Jump Gate? Thirdly, can Tonk's Chamber be pivoted without flanking Crystal?
Cagliostro's Chess. Variant on 12 by 8 board with combination pieces. (12x8, Cells: 96) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Re Chas. Gilman's comment, Cagliostro's is fairly interesting mix of standard compound pieces. When there becomes a predominant mainstream replacement for 64-sq. Orthodox--versus CVP's Googol (10^100) and more possibilities [See recent comments under random chesses, Deployment and Slide Shuffle]--most likely it will have time-honoured, paired R, B, and N, as Orthodox, and such as Capablanca's, Grand, Omega, Falcon and Gothic, on expanded board. Here in Cagliostro's, the idea extends the pairing to Archbishop (B, N) and includes one General (=Amazon = R,N,B). Its fully twelve files, however, as realistic sequel and serious study, may belong to distant future, despite precedent in regional, long-lived Courier Chess.
Rules of Chess FAQ. Frequently asked chess questions.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Of course if free castling is stipulated (as commonly before 100 yrs. ago), King can move one, two or three squares and Rook over to the adjacent square in a castle. Other than castling, in Orthodox Chess King moves its one square. But this is the Chess Variant Page, and the King movement rules are different in, I would guess, half or even one thousand(1000) of the 1600 or 1800 chess-type games herein.
Fugue. Based on Ultima and Rococo this game has pieces that capture in unusual ways. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]A general criticism of Fugue is the high number of piece types (nine) for its sixty-four squares, ratio 9/64. A much-commented game lately is Maxima with ratio piece types to squares 9/76, still (too) high, compared to Orthodox (Mad-Queen, FIDE) 6/64, RNBKQP. (Somewhat afield, at one time on CVP there were discussions of initial piece density where Orthodox shows 50%, as Fugue.) As further ex., in 84-square contest judging, my main critique of Tamerspiel is this same Piece-type Density, 20/84 there, twenty different types of pieces, confusing strategy. There is a point at which game piece differentiation distracts and detracts, players having to dwell on interpretations of rules before even considering actual moves; any chess-like game on 64 sqs. with say 16 different ways of moving surely fails. At some point, criteria like Drama, Decisiveness, Clarity and Depth, as in Mark Thompson's 'Defining the Abstract', need be used more systemically and justified than 'variantists' do today. Games developers justify choices with only 'I like this' or 'That works' without explanation. On what basis? By what other criteria than the five mentioned above?--I have five more to name for measure in another comment. Now Fugue is neat adaptation to 64-sqs.,worthy of its 'Excellents', retaining Cannon Pawns, Imm. and Swapper, the crux of Rococo, but the nine game piece forms may confound tactics, sort of leveling play where often one move is about good as another.
RLavieri cites '23/47' as if some irrelevant, random number out of the blue. Far from it. Actually, recognizing that more than any other number, 23 squares precisely are reachable by Orthodox Queen unobstructed on 64-square board [Or better, 22.8=23 is the average for Q, varying among 21,23,25,27]; and finding that 47 spaces exactly are reached by Winged Amazon [Q+N+Falcon] on average from the twelve centermost squares[((51x4)+(45x8))/12]-- this 23/47, in fact, by chance expresses important measure of relative strengths of two basic compounds, whilst Falcon-Amazon situates centrally on 64 squares, as good strategy dictates. Immediately, particular ratio's relevance to 80- and 100-square boards remains obscure.
Roberto: In a way this topic starts with Robert Abbott's 1980's article 'What's Wrong with Ultima.' Eventually, tone of CVP becomes, what is right with Rococo?--Ultima offshoot. Now theme is: what is right and what is wrong with Fugue? I consider myself Rococo playing expert from present-Courier games, nothing wrong with Rococo as it is. Based on knowledge 2000 Encyclopedia CV games and more or less 2000 CVP games and 200 games patents more or less, I see at least one suspect feature in Fugue, high piece-type density, not having played it. Maybe standards or principles, Depth, Clarity, Piece-type Density, help evaluate games, because there is this prospect (simply using Fugue as available example): Vary the Archer-Bowman ten ways (ranges), vary the Shield ten ways (different piece combinations not shielded etc.), vary the Pawns ten ways (make one or two Pawns unique piece, for ten piece types altogether, etc.). Those options alone make 10x10x10 = 1000 new games, 1000 more sets of rules, more or less. A better way: a priori evaluative criteria. As far as subjectivity in Arts, Paracelsus says, 'Resolute imagination is the beginning of all magical operations. Because men do not perfectly believe and imagine, the result is that Arts are uncertain when they might be wholly certain.'
Magna Carta Chess. Black has the FIDE array, White has a Marshal and an Archbishop instead of a Queen and King. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]One of first Chess-Unequal-Armies games is described by Martin Gardner in Scientific American column in mid-20th century. It has Maharajah (same as Amazon) alone versus standard side of sixteen pieces. Then come Ralph Betza´s CUA games. Here is a logical CUA try with standard compounds; its creativity lies in having, in effect, two Kings per side: a K-Q pair as such vs. Ma-C pair as such, their different movements the 'Unequality,' not so mind-boggling as when all pieces unequal. Worthwhile elementary idea.
Fugue. Based on Ultima and Rococo this game has pieces that capture in unusual ways. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]At request here is a Poor--because CVP has no 'Fair' or 'Average',my real estimation, so to balance previous 'Good'. Game was just backdrop for brief exchange about whether there can be absolute standards to judge games, not methods to create sets of rules. I shall certainly use other pages to comment further on the topic of interest should RLavieri respond, because Fugue itself is irrelevant to the subject raised, and to avoid hypersensitivity. I submit the criterion Piece-type Density, when high, can be overcome, depending on the game. I have argued that Jacks and Witches' 9/84, nine pieces on 84 squares, works well, though exceeding (admittedly arbitrary) 10%, perhaps partly because Jack is in hand. Out of courtesy, (the developer seems to have guessed) I overstated regard for present game when it is really typically Average convolution, benefiting in ratings from the collaborative effort that went into decision of Bowman's power, sort of replay of the 2003 Chess-form by committee.
With respect to Shogi and such cases, I think of promotion pieces as counting 1/2, so Shogi charts at 11/81. Not regarding this 13% as an outlier, what factor(s) makes 0.13+ work in Shogi? Answer: the weaker, Pawnlike character of most pieces, also quantifiable. (Piece-type Density, only one convenient measureable factor, falls off in effectiveness much below 64 squares, certainly by Tori Shogi's 49.) With standards like 'simplicity' and 'elegance,' can they ever be quantified? I think so. Another criterion is Average Moves per recorded game. I submit there is an optimum that players prefer, about 30 or 35, lower than most chesslike games deliver. With the prospect of variants of variants, and thousands of game-rules sets, numerical relationships help evaluate, and some even fail by the numbers.
Define an 'Event', generally applicable, as either a Capture or a Check. An interesting game, one likely to have a high baseline for all four Depth-Drama-Decisiveness-Clarity, should have event frequency 33-50% per paired move. In other words, by move 30 say, there should ordinarily be 10 or 15 captures or checks, either way B-W and W-B.
Gridlock. Large, wargame inspired variant. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Re reference to Gridlock under Game Design: Gridlock is a clever hoax, not intended to be comprehensible only played
To go with Depth-Clarity-Decisive-Drama, the first-order generalities, there are now numeric Piece-type Density, Game Length(# moves), and Event Frequency [(Checks + Captures)/#Moves]. [Cited by Michael Nelson from Ralph Betza's constructs:] Power Density makes four quantifiable factors so far to evaluate a given set of game rules, or any of millions. Power Density, not even requiring database of games played, makes ideal a priori evaluative criterion. PD trades off with PTD: other things being equal, a lower PD tolerates a higher PTD. Larry Smith's Gradations in piece powers are measureable, rigorous as any other way, by, with n the number of piece types and PV piece value: [PV1/PV2 + PV1/PV3...+ PV1/PVn + PV2/PV3...+PV2/PVn...+PV(n-1)/PVn]/ ((n!/(n-2)!)/2) --now five measureable quantities, three without any records of play needed at all--absolute standards if one will.
Michael Howe's All-Rooks' 1/64 is beaten by Craig Daniels' Battle Chieftain's 1/84. There is a chess game in EnclCV, not in CVP, with pieces on every square to start, but it may have only ten piece types; so the upper limit for Piece-type Density is one(1.0)
Subject: Game Length:(#M)= Z(Ptd)/(Pd)G; see below. Ralph Betza frequently submits games-variants not yet played. Randomly under 'C', under RB: Captain Spalding 'However, my impression is that the experience of playing the game will not be very Chesslike at all.' Castlingmost 'It will probably be fun to play OOmost Chess a time or two.' Chatter Chess 'Therefore, I would expect the game to be quite enjoyable.' Chess with Mixed Pawns 'Although I haven't examined it yet, I suspect that it will be a very interesting game.' In fact, I would say descriptions of majority of Betza's 150(?) games give impression of no test by across-the-board opponent. Roberto Lavieri says today, 'All of us are mortal people,' about avoiding Tai Shogi on its 25x25 and Taikuyoku 36x36. Now I go so far as to say only a favored sample of us will live 33,000 days.(approx.) Take that optimistic subset. Even if one starts playing Chess at age 3, as super-Grandmasters are wont to do, that leaves 30,000 day/nights. Now a good variant surely warrants 10 days; think of that as 3 games played a day for a total of 30 games over 10 days, or 4 serious games for a total of 40, or as one will... But 2000 variants more or less list on CVP and another 2000 such in Pritchard, and 4000 variants already exceed the allotment. (4000x10=40,000 days, longer than humans can be expected to live.) Therefore, it can help to have criteria, other than subjective or self-promotional, to evaluate CVs,even without playing them. And why a formula too to estimate Game Length benefits. The included variables are already spelled out in comments. Where #M is game length in number of moves, Pd Power Density, Ptd Piece-type Density, Z Board size in squares, G Smith's Piece Gradient, (#M) = (Z(Ptd))/((Pd)G) , first approximation showing correlations.
On the contrary, Hetacomb proves effectiveness of relational measures, of which there will be many more. If Hetacomb is 64 squares, its two piece types make PTD of 2/64, so low that it tolerates a very high Power Density, other things equal. While true that PD is useless alone, as evaluative systems develop (necessary for sheer number of alternatives), PD stands as important measure subsuming extensive ideas of Ralph Betza and others on piece values (mobility, forwardness).
A Comment says that comparing Games is like apples and oranges. The analogy speaks for itself: we know that biochemically, Apples and Oranges (trees) are mostly alike sharing 95%+ of their 30,000 (60,000?) genes, partly-sequenced basis to compare. So, Chess Variants compare strict equality or not in board size, pieces, and Power Density, Piece-type density. piece Gradient, Event Frequency, if one cares to try other than entirely subjective approach, and also not to dwell on the extreme values where theory less effective. Clarity and Depth alone seem too general unless something measures Clarity-Depth, besides opinion poll. After all topic of interest is Game Design not Preferences.
Isis and Cam. Two variants based on ancient English universities and the rivers near them. (6x8, Cells: 48) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Interesting literary and cinematic themes. Micro-regional CVs for each college-university town in USA by extension would make 700 more CVs--just the ticket. With liberty to relate to recent 'Game Design,' comment follows there just using Isis as example.
One CV by way example, Isis posted week of 25 March, design analysis: # squares: 48 # piece types: 5 Piece-type density: 10.4% Est. piece values: P1, B3, K2, Q4, M8 Initial piece density: 50% Power density: 68/48 = 1.42 [Orthodox Fide's is about 1.25 or 1.30] Exchange Gradient: G = 0.425, using range of values here 1,2,3,4,8 [Orthodox Fide is about 0.50, and Isis shows better exchange potential with lower G] Ave. Game Length projected: #Moves = (4(Z)(ptD)/(PD)(1-G)) = (4)(48)(0.104)/(1.42)(0.575) = 24 Moves So, Isis games should not be very long because small Z (board size) and high potential advantage in exchange (low G). Other features: River reduces value of Q. Comments: Obviously, some values are estimates not completely amenable to analysis. From description only, comparing different games shows trends in useful, compact numerical information, able to complement clearly-written game rules.
Of course Larry Smith and Michael Nelson are right that predilections rank high in importance. No one yet addresses multiplicity of chess game-rules sets, more than anyone can absorb at the level of play. Maybe would-be designers could curb or arrest addiction to design. Or, a change in rules of a long-established game like Ultima, for ex., should be a very cautious act, as a recent Comment under Ultima advises. David Pritchard from Introduction to Encyclopedia of Chess Variants: 'Anyone can invent a new CV within ten seconds and unfortunately some people do' and 'Probably most CVs are best consigned to oblivion.'
Moises Sole asks about G Exchange Gradient in move equation. See my comment here 'To go with Depth-Clarity....' Heuristically, G is average of all the possible ratio-pairings of piece values, King included. Informally: to avoid 'infinities,' put smaller value always on top, normalizing. In specific case of Isis with piece values 1,2,3,4,8, it becomes: (1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 2/3 + 2/4 + 2/8 + 3/4 + 3/8 + 4/8)/(10) = 0.425. Then (1-G) for right directionality with the other factors in #M equation is 0.575. The first use of G, or (1-G), is to predict average number of moves in a game-concept. This predicts closely game length for those tested so far: M = 4(Z)(T)/(P)(1-G), where M #Moves, Z board size, T piece-type density, P Power density, G Gradient as above.
Jack & Witches design analysis: # squares: 84 # piece types: 9 Piece-type density: 0.101 Est. piece values: P1,L2,N3,B2,R5, J1(in hand), K2,C7,W12 [Probably Pawns are less than 1 and Witch greater than 12, but convenient to stay at these limits] Initial piece density: 48% Power density: 122/84 = 1.45 Exchange gradient: 0.444; (1-G) = 0.556 #M = (3.5(84)(0.101))/(1.45(0.556)) = 37 moves [Still fine-tuning constant now 3.5 instead of 4] Other features: Transporter cells do not disproportionately affect piece values. Comments: Power density is high substantially from number of pieces paired, five(5).
Rococo design analysis:
# squares: 82 [counting rim squares as 1/2]
# piece types: 8
Piece-type density: 0.098
Est. piece values: P2,W3,K3,C4,S5,L7,A8,I10
Initial piece density: 32/82 = 39%
Power density: 126/82 =1.54
Exchange gradient: 0.69; (1-G) = 0.31
Ave. Game Length: #M = (3.5(82)(0.098))/(1.54(0.31)) = 60 moves
Other features: Reasonable to count as 1/2 border squares, reachable only
by capture. The high exchange gradient (low exchange
potential) reflects steady continuum of piece values.
Comments: Long games, high # moves predicted, and Rococo is game that
player can recover from being down in material.Predictions for the length of games (#M) is not the main goal for looking
at CVs analytically. Yet results from Courier completed games
interesting:
-predicted ave.#M- -Game Courier-
Jacks&Witches 37 11-03-04 23 = 24 Moves,
(anticipating checkmate)
07-10-03 14 = 16 Moves
28-10-03 26 = 36 Moves,
checkmate maybe 10 moves ahead
Rococo 60 15-12-03 44 Moves
16-01-04 55 = 60 Moves,
(checkmate five moves ahead)
23-12-03 53 = about 58 Moves played out
The trend is apparent that, with Z Board size more or less constant,
Exchange Gradient especially has high predictive value for length (#M).Wildebeest Chess design analysis:
# squares: 110
# piece types: 8
Piece-type density: 7.27%
Est. piece values: P1, N3, B3, R5, Q10, K3, C4, W8
Initial piece density: 40%
Power density: 1.27
Exchange Gradient: 0.499; (1-G) = 0.501
Ave. Game Length Projected: #Moves=((3.5)(110)(0.0727))/((1.2727)(0.499))
= 44 Moves
Features: Unbalanced initial positioning suggests a hundred more
variations on the same board with the same pieces.
Comments: Despite large Z board size,low PTD suggests average-length games.Antoine Fourriere mis-reads Larry Smith's idea, which I agree with, that potential for advantage in the exchange comes from significant differences in piece values, regardless whether many an exchange may appear equal. I incorporate these piece-value disparities numerically in what is called Exchange Gradient. In Antoine's words, 'a useful variable' of 'over-all strength by piecetype variance' is exactly what EG is.
Ultima. Game where each type of piece has a different capturing ability. (8x8, Cells: 64) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Ultima design analysis: # squares: 64 # piece types: 7 Piece-type density: 10.9% Initial piece density: 50% Power density: 84/64 = 1.31 Long diagonal: a1-h8 Est. piece values: P1, K2, W3, Co 3, Ca 4, L 5, I 8 Exchange Gradient: G = 0.505; (1-G)=0.495 Ave. Game Length: M = 3.5(Z)(T)/(P)(1-G) = (3.5*64*0.109)/(1.31*0.495) = 38 Moves Features: Unusual Pawns (pincer) may cohere with the chosen piece mix Comments: Prosaic values across the board confound evaluation.
We may need an Advanced Exchange Gradient, per Antoine Fourriere's method, for some studies, to reflect all individual pieces' value relationships. So far the only formula out of EG is No. of Moves, and for that any imprecision of not counting each piece separately is offset an extent by over-all Power Density and the constant in M = 3.5(Z*T)/(P*(1-G)), keeping this remark brief. I am also working on a variable to reflect Lavieri's cry for measure of positional-advantage potential too.
Battle Chieftain Chess. Warriors and a king fight on a board with walls and holes. (10x11, Cells: 84) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Battle Chieftain design analysis:
# squares: 84
# piece types: 1, differentiated into one K makes 1.5
Piece-type density: 1.8%
Est. piece values: B5
Initial piece density: 24%
Power density: 1.19
Long diagonal: a1-i9
Exchange gradient: 0.98 (assuming minimal differentiation Berserker
to King-equivalent: 5.0/5.1);(1-G)=0.02
Ave. game length: M = 3.5Z(T)/P(1-G)=(3.5*84*(0.018))/(1.19)(0.02)=
222 Moves
Features: These are all Rooks (interest only as extreme case)
Comment: Values reasonable except G;(1-G) is just some low value
and M is >100 Quintessential chess. Large chess variants, with some pieces moving with a sequence of knight moves in a zigzag line. (10x10, Cells: 84) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Quintessential Chess design analysis
#squares: 84
#piece types: 7
Piece-type density: 8.3%
Est. piece values: P1, K2, D5, Q6, J7, C7, L9 [Janus and Centurion are
close in value; on board any smaller C>J]
Initial piece density: 48%
Long diagonal: c1-j8
Power density: 1.64
Exchange gradient: 0.502; (1-G) = 0.498
Ave. game length projected: M = 3.5*Z*T/P*(1-G) =
3.5(84)(0.083)/(1.64)(0.498)= 30 Moves
Features: Diagonal-moving pieces predominate, yet values separate
enough that a typical Gradient appears.
Comments: To estimate these piece values takes more than usual sliding
of values up and down til they become appropriateIn the recent long comment, Antoine Fourriere names 7 CVs I believe in first paragraph, and seven more through article, only two of his own 'portfolio'(both which I rated Excellent), the rest I suppose from his 'repertory'. Another mind might list a different 7 as standard, or as formative. Not everyone uses Shogi, for ex., as model for western CVs. Still another team may have 7 more, theme-based perhaps, another 7 violent games, and so on to another group with 70 micro-regional-based, 700 small CVs, 7000 larger variants, 70,000 more sacrosanct to some. What way out except to begin to have design analysis criteria? Or, historicocritically, as Vladimar Lenin says, 'What Is To Be Done?'
Note that M = 3.5ZT/P(1-G) is useful form of Move Equation because T, piece-type density, will figure in the Positional-advantage Potential Equation, yet to be posted. Use of T, piece-type density, in both enables other comparisons later. Actually, of course, for Game Length, #M = 3.5N/P(1-G), N simply number of piece-types, is all that is necessary, eliminating Z Board Size from numerator. Z still contributes to determination of Power Density. So, original equation reduces to M = 3.5N/P(1-G)
Capablanca's chess. An enlarged chess variant, proposed by Capablanca. (10x8, Cells: 80) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Capablanca's Chess design analysis
# squares: 80
# piece types: 8
Piece-type density: 10%
Initial piece density: 50%
Long diagonal: a1-h8
Est. piece values: P1, K2, N3, B3, R5, A7, C8, Q9
Power density: 1.40
Exchange Gradient: 0.469 (1 - G = 0.531)
Ave. Game Length Projected: M = 3.5T/P(1-G) = (3.5*8)/(1.4*(0.531))
= 38 Moves
Features: Includes all three two-fold R-N-B compounds, low G means very
good exchange potential
Comment: Around 80 years now since the Grandmaster's advocacy of larger
board to confront draw problem, Capablanca's Chess
practically mimics Carrera's idea from about 400 years ago. Rules of Chess FAQ. Frequently asked chess questions.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Orthodox (Mad Queen) design analysis: # squares: 64 # piece types: 6 Initial piece density: 50% Piece values: P1, N3, B3, R5, Q9 Power density: 1.22 Exchange Gradient: 0.50 Ave. Game Length: #M = (3.5*6)/(1.22*0.5) = 34 moves
Capablanca's chess. An enlarged chess variant, proposed by Capablanca. (10x8, Cells: 80) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Michael Howe: Larry Smith in 21-3-04 Game Design comment: 'The advantage in the exchange: No matter the number of the various pieces, a game might have a significant difference between the weakest and the strongest. This allows for the potential of advantage in the game, even if the exchanges are equal. Of course this value would be quite difficult to quantify and would vary from one game to the next, being dependent upon field and goal.' Exchange Gradient now quantifies this, and used for Moves, it closely predicts game lengths, looking at Courier games and elsewhere. I repeatedly called attention to Mark Thompson's article 'Defining Abstract'(Depth, Clarity, Drama) until someone took note. Now I call attention to Smith's Exchange Gradient as useful predictor. Here Capablanca's Chess should show longer games systematically than Orthodox, its low EG not overcoming higher board size.
Horus. Game with Royal Falcons where all pieces start off board and most captures return pieces to owner's hand. (7x7, Cells: 44) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]'Horus', in conjunction with Chess, is not original to this game, far from being Peter Aronson's idea. The game description's first line, 'Horus named for the Egyptian God who bears the title Falcon of the Horizon and who was sometimes depicted as having a Falcon head,' figures recurrently in my Chess poetry since year 2000. In 'Castle Early' I write about 'Falcon-headed Horus.' In 'Chess Morality IV Promotion': 'From chimeral horizon unto zenith'--referring to Horus. In 'CM IX Sacrifice': 'Falcon head.' In 'CM X': 'Above the Pyramid, the Eye of Horus, the Falcon god.' In 'CM XI': 'Falcon and ankh'(of Horus). And so on, the Falcon-Horus image still being developed to support Falcon Chess. (US Patent 5690334)Fiction like poetry is unusual for CVP, but takes a lot more work I have found than mere write-ups of game rules. I object to this game's being called Horus, albeit for a small chess, as a matter of courtesy. It usurps the name Horus just as disrespectfully as taking the name of an existing game for one's own--not up to Chess Variant Page's usual standards. The 'Good' simply reflects that 44-sq. Falcon ZRF is reasonable trainer in what is the first of the four fundamental Western game pieces. And three of them even may interact with Bishop and Knight. (N.B., not fully amplified in Complete Permutation Chess, Falcon is first of the four R-N-B-F in that they are implicit in F, not vice versa.)
Bad enough that CVP editor no less lifts 'Horus' from major theme of 600 lines of Falcon Chess poetry since 2000. Peter Aronson also puts out misleading description of Falcon move beginning, 'Falcon moves like a Bison.' Hardly correct. Falcon is a Rider with one or two 45-degree turns. 'Bison' appears nowhere in 2000 Pritchard's 'Encyclopedia of CV' games or 2000 more games in CVP (4000 total games so far). Fitting into no false, preconceived template, Falcon does not jump like Knight (1,2), or Camel (1,3) or Zebra (2,3). Whereas, theoretical Bison is a (1,3)(2,3)Leaper defined in very rare couple of problems. My Patent Disclosure in January 1995 cites three(3)Pritchard ECV games with (Z+N) compound and three others with (C+N). 'Actual Bison' (as Zebra plus Camel), even if it appeared in any game, would not particularly elucidate Falcon move, since they are from wholly different families of pieces, Leapers and Riders. Aronson goes on that Falcon (US Patent 5690334) has greater piece value than 'lame Bison.' What is that? He never defines it. What to make of describing a fundamental Chess piece (Falcon, with R, N, B the other three such) in terms of what it is not? It's like playing a game of twenty(20) Questions: is it this, or is it that, until what is left out of everything possible is what it is.
Coined in 2003 by Ralph Betza (and never used by anyone else)the term 'Lame' is applied to Dabbaba, where from e4 it can move to e6 if and only if e5 is empty. 'Lameness' to him makes a leaper not a leaper, since it requires unobstructed pathway. Yet Falcon uniquely has three(3)pathways to each square 3 steps away not reachable by Knight or Queen. So neither lameness nor leaping describe Falcon. Aronson goes on: 'One result is that, unlike with Lame pieces, if Black's Falcon attacks White's Falcon, White's Falcon also attacks Black's Falcon.' [Later I delete here some lines speculating what a 'lame Bison'is. Who knows? Aronson refuses to define it; as of April 2004, no one has used 'lame' for any oblique mover at all. The uncomplimentary term originates with Aronson. He just wants pejorative adjective attached to Falcon, and succeeds to the extent others now start calling F 'lame'--after Aronson writes that Falcon is not lame. Altogether a worthless, deliberately misleading move description.] It is not worth delving into these 20-Questions-like what-it-is-not snapshots of F move. Just go to original articles, where Falcon defined affirmatively in terms of Rook, Knight, and Bishop, and those four standards' mutuality and accompaniments are honestly and systematically related.
US Patent 5690334 for Falcon Chess is about seven years past the challenge stage, so patent's claims are solid having been unchallenged. Games patents go back over 100 years, including Scrabble, Monopoly; Peter Aronson mentions under Complete Permutation, Ed Trice's Gothic Chess Patent 6481716. Lost on Aronson is that 'Horus', while perfectly obvious, is already used extensively in Falcon Chess poetry for the same patented novelty. Having searched for just the right wording for Falcon-Horus images, I think of it as expropriation for this miniature chess: no commercial consequence would be issue, just common courtesy for those who may not be singlemindedly obsessed with churning out new sets of game rules. Patenting is wholly different sphere than mere names of games: about five US Patents for Chess issue per year, down from a peak of ten a decade ago. As stated in Complete Permutation Chess comment, because well-schooled in variants myself, I deliberately excluded 8x8 from my claims, so CVist may experiment and welcome to use Falcon there without infringement. [One could] relate these ideas to Fergus Duniho's Enneagram under Game Design.
Regarding Roberto's comment, I think most consider Vladimir Kramnik the 'actual World Champion,' not Ruslan Ponomariov. That is because Kramnik beat Gary Kasparov, 13th champion, in 2000 to become 14th in a succession that goes back clearly to at least 1886 with Wilhelm Steinitz the first. Whereas, Ponomariov is only the most recent winner of FIDE 'lottery' as 128- or 64-elimination tournaments have been called. If Peter Leko defeats Kramnik in Sept./Oct.2004, in match backed by new Association of Chess Professionals, likewise most everyone will regard Leko as 15th World Chess champion. Of course, there is talk of 'unifying' the title, but FIDE has usually sanctioned the (recent) Fischer-Karpov-Kasparov-Kramnik succession.
Patt-schach (Stalemate chess). Players start with an illegal move from a stalemated position. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I maintain the starting arrays within Passed Pawns Chess and Passed Pawns, Scorpions and Dragon are improvements over this 'advanced pawns' concept. I did not find Patt-schach and Upside-Down Chess right away(although I knew I had seen them about 1996), as references for those two variant pages from 2003, designed equally to highlight Falcon move.
Passed Pawns, Scorpions and Dragon. More Falcon Chess Variants.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Games that previously use advanced Pawns systematically in starting array are Patt-Schach, Upside-Down Chess, and thirdly French Revolution Chess. I think the arrays here in Passed Pawns Chess are unique with piece and pawn adjacency centrally.
Passed Pawns Chess. A Decimal Falcon Chess Variant. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Inspirations for Passed Pawns Chess, helpful in elucidating Falcon move, are French Revolution Chess, Upside-Down Chess and Patt-Schach, as they all have pawns advanced so that pawn capture by pawn is impossible.
/a>
Circular Chess. Chess on a round board. (16x4, Cells: 64) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]An interesting way to bring 'spaciousness' to the usually constricted play of round boards is Richard VanDeventer's Round Table Chess (92 sqs.) and its improvement Round Table 84--not covered under Charles Gilman's Tryzantine article. Of course, as with square boards and with rectangular boards, and with hexagonal-spaced ones and 3-D, it quickly can multiply into infinitude in combinations (of game-rules sets), each one making a game unto itself, by varying piece types, numbers and board sizes; my comments under the randomized chess Slide-Shuffle support that truism. Still VanDeventer Round boards without a 'hole' suggest whole new families of kindred variations.
Quinquereme Chess. Large variant with a new piece, the Quinquereme. (12x12, Cells: 144) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Is 144-board the largest size that lends itself to coherent strategy? Turkish Great Chess V at 13x13 being played now at Courier seems to have passed that point. (Jupiter has 16x16.) And there is a photograph of Charles Fort from the 1930s playing on what is clearly a 1000-square board for a joke. Here Quintessence as improved Nightrider establishes with R-N-B all the standard compounds, but 12x12 squares must be upper limit for reasonable play.
Switching Chess. In addition to normal moves, switch with an adjacent friendly piece. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Switching Chess is a natural idea and surprisingly not in Pritchard, though I prefer its embodiment in one piece (Swapper) with unfriendly units too. Also, another pathway to an infinitude of Chess variants, as I first describe under Slide-Shuffle, utilizes this position-Shifting Chess idea. Take the 2000 games in CVP. Suppose each has average of ten piece types(approx). Let just one type of piece initiate 'Switch,' and add that sub-rule to each different game-rules set: 20,000 distinct games emerge. Let any two piece-types do so: close to 200,000 sets of rules. Allow Switching from only a subset of 8 or 10 squares: about 2 million separate ways of playing. Continuing with these factors in combinations -- switching only coordinated by squares across various diagonals (of rectangles),odd, even, prime, etc.: that one is good for 1000 per game anyway, giving 2 billion now. Randomized baseline and Pawn positioning added: 2 quadrillion, and so on, a switch-trade after capture, before check, on Move 5 or on Move 11, adjacent to Pawn, before King, the ideas are endless; somewhere between quadrillion and Googol (10*100)--as commented Slide-Shuffle-- is a practical infinity for Earth-bound minds.
P1, N3, B3, R5, Q9 and supposed fractions for B and Q. Orthodox values should apply because Swap becomes like alternative to a move when any piece can Switch. Bishop no longer colour-bound? Knight more mobile? Queen freer to attack? Rook to make double threat? All true, but with generalized Switch, each such nuance has its offset(s) and risk, and each other piece-type correspondingly. Pawn-Piece disparity compared to Orthodox? A piece on rank 7 or 8 switches with an unmoved pawn. The pawn promotes. That's the power of the piece more than the Pawn; moreover, one or other's switching ability is redundant. Maybe some games played would show fractional-point increase in value for Pawn, but not looking to be self-evident. I think play with orthodox valuations in back of mind suffices on 8x8, or 8x10, with added switch-rule this way. So, the same Design Analysis chart under 'Rules of Chess FAQ' applies, with similar piece gradients.
Swap Chess. A move can consist of a series of pieces swapping places. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Swap Chess and Switching Chess are neither in Pritchard's ECV(1994). Switching Ch's now requiring adjacency should avoid passive positions on 8x8. This Swap Ch. would be the better implementation on larger boards 8x10 and 10x10--further improved probably without the serial swaps. This one's Swap along range of attack of P1 calls for full-sized boards enabling exotic pieces: some pairing of Marshall, Cardinal, Falcon, Nightrider/Quintessence, or Cannon/Canon. Quintanilla's basic Switching Chess originally has switch over one straight or diagonal step between same-coloured units and plays better than say Fischer's Random, even with still prosaic piece mix.
From Ungulates Outwards. A Systematic Set of Names for the Simplest Oblique Pieces.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Defining oblique pieces by their coordinates leads to SOLL, in order to deal only in integers. A Ferz is two Wazir moves at right angles(SOLLs ratio 2:1). A Camel is two Knight moves at right angles (SOLLs ratio 10:5). That symmetry shows why the Quintessence (of Qu. Ch and Quinquereme), rather than Nightrider, is correct extension of Knight in two dimensions. It is worthwhile in the abstract naming the pieces moving oblique directions beyond Camel and Zebra. However, follow-up could relate to Chess and CVs by asking whether 5:3 or 6:1 leapers, as ex, are useful exotic pieces. Probably not. The 5:1 Zemel, 5:2 Vine, 5:3 Gimel, 5:4 Rector are all of them better implemented as 5-square 5-way DRAGON non-leaping: Dragon reaches all of those squares. [See my Passed Pawns, Scorpions and Dragon article] The 4:1 Giraffe, 4:3 Antelope and 4:2 two-step N-rider--all of them come under SCORPION without jumping ability. The 6:1 Flamingo (or Mallet for FO), 6:2 two-step Camel-Rider, 6:5 Pastor, 6:3 and 6:4 -- all of them are subsumed by PHOENIX, a 6-sq 6-way chess piece required to follow specific pathways. Occasionally, commentary might say that Dragon's 5-square move reaches one particular 5:4 'Umbrella'-square, but only colourful embellishment for that instance.
Switching Chess. In addition to normal moves, switch with an adjacent friendly piece. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I think the first write-up of Switching Ch left out adjacency. Allowing same-coloured switching (excluding of course the pointless null move between like piece-types) regardless of position would create explosive play. A piece on rank 8 could switch with unmoved Pawn for immediate promotion. Or Knight switch with Queen seven spaces removed for a check or mate. That sub-rule is more in keeping with CVP's usual broadmindedness. The four-sentence rules as now evolved are more like a suggestion for serious reform of standard FIDE Chess. And as stated, SwCh plays better than Fischer's Random Chess.
Switching Chess swap could be implemented for all 2000 CVP games, as well as the 2000 Pritchard ECV games. (A couple hundred now overlap both sources, as this week's Cross and Chesquerque) Like Fischer's random baseline, the new idea--distinct from Neto's Swap--has general applicability. The fact that Switching's first use is for standard FIDE chess shows Chess Variant Page for what it is, a bastion of orthodoxy. Seriously, SwgCh likely best recommendation since FRC staying within 64 squares to upset memorized opening theory. Pritchard under Capablanca's Ch, pages 38-39, summarizes debate in 1920s to reform Chess, led by GM JRC. Not locked in a thought-rut like other Grandmasters, Capablanca, Fischer, Botvinik know every game to be CV and yet quest for few ideal forms.
Chesquerque. Variant played on a quadruple Alquerque board. (9x9, Cells: 81) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Troyka's Weave and Dungeon also has uneven but symmetric connectivity, making visualizable play problematic. The old Alquerque boards do not use long-range pieces like George Dekle's Chesquerque, whose Archbishop and Queen here compound the opaqueness.
Cross Chess. Game played on a cross-shaped board. (Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Convert Queens to Kings and this becomes a rather uninteresting 4-team chess, or don't and it is partnership game for four with a few minor provisions. As two-player, it is about like mixing Berolina and standard pawns, as done occasionally.
DICE-MATE CHESS improved CONTEST ENTRY--now 18 pieces only 1. No Promotion,Demotion,Capture 2. Array: White Ra1,Nb1,Bc1,Kd1,Fe1; Black Kd8,Fe8,Bf8,Ng8,Rh8 Pawns: White 4 only: a3, c3, e3, g3; Black b6, d6, f6, h6 3. No more than two friendly pieces may be adjacent to King. This prevents walling off King. No more than two enemy pieces may be adjacent to King. This prevents withering attack. 4. The precise winning condition is variable and unknown until the Roll of Dice after a Check. So any Check may become Mate: Once checked, the King cannot move OUT OF it, unless invalidated by opponent's Roll of Dice--as it usually is, as follows. One number gives piece, P1, N2, B3, R4, Q5, K6 approved. With good play there may be two or more prospects in multiple checks. Other gives direction of check/mate with orientation always White side: 1N,2E,3S,4W,5NE/SW,6SE/NW. Roller takes numbers in either favorable order: a 1 in 18 chance for mate per check. If you don't have a check, don't roll the dice. Anyone wins with cheap check and lucky throw. 5. K may move INTO check. N can check/mate from either of its two into K. K may not move to corner square. 6. If Dice do not match attack conditions, play just goes on until Checkmate validated by Dice. In long run should be strategic
Dice-Mate Chess revised is strategic because checks are to be thwarted by positioning, and
the better play may net many times more checks, then to be dice-validated, or not. Giving check even when not awarded checkmate, is alternative measure of good play, and DMCh counts it toward decisive result with no draws
Ultima. Game where each type of piece has a different capturing ability. (8x8, Cells: 64) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]In April 2004 comment this same page I estimate those Ultima values in Design analysis: P1, K2, W3, Co3, Ca4, L5, I8, keeping integers. I haven't done C++ programming this decade, so don't know whether King's offensive value would be needed, depending on structure of program. Refining these estimates, maybe L closer to 5.5, and W>Co. [Further, I would enter P1, W3.1, Co2.9, Ca4.3, L5.3, I8.2, and see how that plays]
Grander Chess. A variant of Christian Freeling's Grand Chess. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]The business of unprotected Pawns comes up about once a year. Chaturanga and Shatranj have unprotected pawns in starting array. It is easy to extend the list to hundreds. What is most frequent standard
FIDE opening? e4, an undefended Pawn in the center of the board.
Ultima. Game where each type of piece has a different capturing ability. (8x8, Cells: 64) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Of course I posted anonymously about sliding values based on things objective, i.e. especially Captures and Number of Moves, just standard programming. More mathematically, to go with Move Equation under Game Design topic, I also developed a Positional Advantage Equation. It measures a game from its rules for positional advantage potential. [Achernar], being Orthodox Chess with interesting but bizarre rules overlaid, would expect any basic program to play well.[I switched Achernar and Deneb, sorry]
I have not published Positional Advantage Equation, taking Mark Thompson's advice to write an article. Move Equation is M = 3.5N/P(1-G). I don't know where they index special topics; you see it scrolling back any of the talkers.
Mainzer Schach. Large variant with Janus, Marshall, and different setup. (11x8, Cells: 88) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]About underpromotion, my concurrent Kibitz comment shows example of one in the making in recent Switching Ch. game, where Pawn-to-Knight can enforce series of checks, as David Paulowich posits. Conventionally they always come up with half a dozen at such as Tim Krabbe's chess page or Tim Harding's Chess Cafe column, in occasional subject. They consider it a really exotic topic. Where no Queen promotion, as in Falcon Chess, what is the underpromotion, Rook or Falcon? There I guess only Knight is underpromotion. Then unusual CVs may have hard-to-estimate values, so which piece would be underpromotion becomes subjective.
Dutch columnist Tim Krabbe's Chess Curiosities has in main index 'Promotion to Rook and Bishop in Games, Over 40 Serious Examples', subheading 'Underpromotion'
Camel. An elongated Knight making a (3, 1) leap.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]What is piece value of Camel(1,3)? Usually the same or less than value of Knight. Even in the Turkish Great Chesses being played now on Game Courier, one prefers Knight or even two Pawns to Camel--and those pawns promote only to Wazir. So besides being awkward as Zebra(2,3), Camel has the lowest worth; any less and it is like a Pawnlike unit. Further, one could go so far as to say that any eight-square oblique leaper has less value than the standby Knight. Antelope, Flamingo, any of Charles Gilman's neologisms Rector, Parson, Curate, Deacon each and all slightly less value than the versatile Knight. Likely we shall never hear of Camel or Flamingo or Curate in the 99%+ of chess world not immersed in CVs.
The point of more trips of six moves(or 5,7,10,whatever) is just that longer leapers have less mobility, given a board size. On 10x10 Gilman's Albatross(9,2)can move only from back rank to promotion square, back and forth ranks 1 and 10, until getting to file a or j, whence it so goes right and left too, never away from an edge. My implication is that working backwards from such as Albatross, even Camel and Zebra, while more valuable than those of greater leap length, are ineffective chess pieces. What game really uses a Camel effectively or Zebra to advantage? All these simple oblique leapers serve for intellectual exercises, but compounds entirely different story.
Turkish Great Chess V(13x13) being played now at Courier employs Camel not Zebra. There Camel seems, having played 50 moves, sort of 'odd piece out'. They're there but not much use; the game would be better with another long-range piece or N-C, N-Z compounds. Likewise Knappen's Quinquereme,centered on the neat Quintessence, throws in C and Z almost as afterthought. Wildebeest is worth revisiting, but Camel always seems like a residual element that designer falls back on, reason being really rather defective for actual play.(Comments' colour features, mating weaknesses)Exception may be Overby's Beastmaster with all leapers in a deliberate intellectualization.
Ecumenical Chess. Set of Variants incorporating Camels and Camel compound pieces. (8x10, Cells: 80) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Overby's Beastmaster Chess has Pegasus(=Zebra+Giraffe(1,4)) and Roc (=Camel+Alfil); probably R-C and B-C are unused before. Notice the groupings in Beastmaster not following Leap Length. Both Gilman's and Overby's approaches could be factored into hundreds of new CVs by different piece mixes and board sizes, as Charles suggests preparing for more drastic leapers, surely using his established nomenclature. I disagree 'The bigger the board, the weaker Ns and Cs'. Not necessarily, relative to other simple (8-sq) leapers; Ns and the lesser Cs may become inherently more defensive.
Fischer Random Chess. Play from a random setup. (8x8, Cells: 64) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Bobby Fischer's current take on FRC, radio interview last week,20.8.04 (from ChessBase):'I play Fischer Random. It is a much better game, more challenge. Chess is a dead game, it is played out. Fischer Random is a version of Chess that I developed or invented, where you shuffle the back row of pieces, not the pawns. Each side has an identical shuffle, so that everything is symmetrical, just like in the old chess. There are just a couple of rules: one Rook has to be to the left of the King, one has to be to the right of the King, one Bishop has to be on a light-coloured square, and one on a dark-coloured square. That's basically it. You can learn the rules in two minutes. It's a great game, and can become the standard for chess.'
Camel. An elongated Knight making a (3, 1) leap.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Piece value estimates here and under Legler's Ch do not operate independent of other features of each game: kind of Pawns(Berolina, Xiangqi, Cannon), board size, goal(generally checkmate). For ex., Camel and N both lose half-points as number of squares increase, relative to long-range units. Also simply the more compound riders, the less value each one has, compared to Pawns and leapers. Marshall and Cardinal probably fall off 0.5 from 8.0 and 7.0 standards for each 5% their types' numbers (including Queen) increase over 20% in a piece mix. Short of extensive playtesting, how to estimate PVs? Just by knowledge of many game-rules sets, visualizing positions, making tentative sets of values and sliding estimates mutually appropriate. Unicorn (B+NN) not always 9 pts, but typically 9, with a range maybe 5 for small boards to 12 where Shogi-type pieces predominate. Likewise Cardinal may be fully 8 pts. standard pawns and no Queen on 10x10.
Rose. Can make consecutive knightmoves in a circle.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Knappen's Nachtmahr covers all the different Nightriders including Rose. The trouble is that any extension of Knight can look like a Knight's Tour (problem theme) instead of a chess movement. The maximum-four-step Half-Rose making more sense, what is piece value? Comparable to Nightrider itself between 8x8 and 12x12, 4.5 points.
In 'More Halflings' Betza says 'A halfling is worth half as much as a normal piece' and 'Halflings are worth half.' Incorrect; estimates way off in case of Rose and Half-Rose, both agreed to be close to Rook value. Interesting piece Half-Rose can also perform double check across the four-step routes, but taking seven rows, rather unlikely where eight ranks. Maintained for twelve years as first of the four atomic chess pieces, Falcon triple checks when unimpeded; an intervening piece may still leave two Falcon pathways to King's position. Few pieces have multiple pathways like Rose and Falcon; one is Carlos Cetina's Sissa. Obviously, Sissa and Half-Rose make double paths only certain of their squares.
Sissa. Variant on 9 by 9 board with Sissa's. (9x9, Cells: 81) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Of course Sissa has two pathways to each square on any rectangular board, and either or both may be blocked. 225- and 315-degree angles throw one for a second, but Sissa is a two-path piece, like Eric Greenwood's Cavalier and Duke (both used before in Pritchard ECV games) and like Betza's Rose. I guess 'multiple-path' applies to two possibilities.
Article does not discuss multiple pathways. In fact, Sissa moves to squares of Rook plus those of Nightrider. What is name, as 'Unicorn' is B + NN? However, Sissa does not leap like NN or slide like Rook. Actually it moves to each 'N-Rider square' by two unique paths and 'Rook square' by four(4) routes. Four pathways may be cut to two only by proximity to edge. Still, intervening pieces may reduce any 4-fold way to 3-, 2-, or one, or prohibit move altogether; and any 2-fold way to 1 or 0. More interesting innovation than most CV games that come from new combinations or small change of old elements.
Quantum Chess 
. Commercial variant with new pieces on 10 by 10 and 12 by 12 boards. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Watt and Kapaa's Quantum Chess is based on their US Patent 5511793 issued April 30, 1996, and a (second)7.5-yr. renews it. Webpage has been down before, so it may return, having 10x10 and 12x12 boards. Patent is the longest games patent ever, awkwardly almost 100 pages single-spaced, rivaling recent biochemical patents, about only comparable. Falcon Chess USP5690334, 25.11.97, and Trice's Gothic Chess USP6481716, 19.11.02, both reference it.
Camel. An elongated Knight making a (3, 1) leap.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating](Camel + Wazir) looks like best (and simplest) compound to make Camel worthwhile chess piece, bestowing colour-changing potential without whimsically turning it into long-range piece. And (Zebra + Ferz) would balance with that in particular game, since Zebra already changes square colour each (2,3)move anyway.
Coherent Chess. Variant on 9 by 9 board with special knights. (9x9, Cells: 81) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]First used Cetina's Sissa is the 'Knight', actually moving to Nightrider and Rook squares, but not like they do. In Second Board above, 'Sissa', or 'Knight', on c3 may capture Rook on c5 by Four-Fold pathways: c3-d3-e3-d4-c5, or c3-d4-c5-d5-c5, or c3-b3-a3-b4-c5, or c3-b4-a5 b5-c5. No pieces intervene, but if they did, any one pathway would be sufficient to move and capture c5 from c3. Sissa's 'N-Rider' squares are reachable by two-fold pathways. No Bishops' conversion rule like in Sissa Chess.
Sissa. Variant on 9 by 9 board with Sissa's. (9x9, Cells: 81) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]In second drawing above, Sissa at c3 captures Queen at e7 by its 'modified Nightrider route' c3-d4-e5-e6-e7. The other pathway c3-c4-c5-e6-d7 is blocked by Rook at c5, but for two-fold-pathway square, one path is sufficient to complete move (and capture). Sissa goes to N-Rider squares by two-fold way, and Rook squares by four-fold way. Also making same distinction is the angled change of direction. When it turns 45 degrees, Sissa goes to N-Rider square; when 135 degrees, Rook square. It is not necessary, as in article, to think in terms of 225- or 315-degree changes of direction--a '315 turn' is just a 45-degree one the other way for Chess purposes.
The Game of Jetan. Extensive discussion of various versions of the rules of Jetan. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]My recent Comments under 'Sissa' and 'Rose' pursue theme of multiple-pathway pieces, including Falcon, Sissa, Rose and Half-Rose so far. Jetan here has several pieces that move to a given square in more than one way: Thoat, Dwar, Flyer or Odwar, and Chief or Chieftain.
Renniassance Chess. With 68 pieces on board of 12 by 12. (12x10, Cells: 120) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Edgar Burroughs' Jetan has many pieces with multiple pathways. Before returning to Jetan, Eric Greenwood's Renaissance Chess here and in Pritchard has relevant pieces. Both Cavalier and Duke [recently discussed by David Paulowich] are two-path long-range pieces. Any square each can move to has two routes, and when one is blocked by either colour, move may yet be valid by the other pathway. So, 'multiple-pathers' extend Falcon, Rose, Half-Rose, Duke, Cavalier, Sissa.
The Game of Jetan. Extensive discussion of various versions of the rules of Jetan. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Six of eight Jetan piece-types have multiple paths in both sets of rules in 'Chessmen of Mars', text and appendix, giving latter precedence as Burroughs' intended revision. In appendix Warrior moves two squares orthogonally with 90-degree change of direction allowed. So, Warrior's two-path squares are the diagonally adjacent ones, 'Ferz squares'. A second piece, Padwar moves two diagonal in any combination of directions. Therefore, when Padwar 'turns' 90 degrees, it is going to a two-path square. To CV researchers, Padwar multiple-, that is two-, path squares are 'Dabbabah squares'. Notice that Warrior's one-path squares and Padwar's two-way squares are the very same Dabbabah squares. Both types of arrival squares, one-way and two-way, can be blocked, but it takes at least two pieces (of either colour) so a two-way one. These are two of the six multiple-pathers in Jetan.
Commented lately under Sissa, Rose and Jetan (Larry Smith on Burroughs')are chess pieces with two or more (multiple) paths per square destination. No one has previously grouped the type together just as logically as say 'Leapers'. Jetan's five such piece-types originate by 1920s. Renaissance Chess' Duke and Cavalier arise in 1980. Falcon from Falcon Chess is documented from December 1992 and patent applied for 1996. Sissa, the half-Rook half-Bishop, hails from 1998, about the time Betza experiments with Rose and Half-Rose. In addition to Warrior and Padwar, as Paulowich points out the simplest multiple-path chess pieces, Jetan has Thoat, Dwar and Chieftain also meeting criteria fitting the bill. Thoat moves one straight, one diagonal, either order and any direction. Besides its TWO-WAY Wazir squares, of interest non-jumping Thoat goes to 'Knight' squares two different ways, following the move definition. With the five Jetan chess pieces--Dwar and Chieftain still to be explicated--added to the six previous above, eleven(11) multiple-route movers so far.
Tim Stiles' Wolf's squares not on Rook's path are more or less conventionally one-way. Wolf's squares along Rook's path are fittingly two-way. Insofar as as not blocked, Wolf reaches any possible Rook square beyond Dabbabah locations by two alternatives whilst not following Rook's pathway. Although Cetina's Sissa unimpeded moves (four-way) to any Rook square, the three pieces (R,W,S) all utilize entirely different pathways. The rule Burroughs lays down for Dwar, moving three squares straight (orthogonal) in any direction or combination, creates three types of squares, the cases alternately one-way, two-way and three-way. Dwar's Wazir squares are two-way, Knight squares three-way, and (0,3) Rookwise one-way.
Grotesque Chess. A variant of Capablanca's Chess with no unprotected Pawns. (10x8, Cells: 80) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Most outsiders would not know Guard and Equerry, having myself to click a few times to sort them out. Matter of particular array is relatively trivial compared to specific piece mix, since any initial position can be randomized. Fergus Duniho correctly points this assortment of pieces goes back 500 yrs.(Regina Rabiosa's debut), so hardly original. The form of castling is used also in Falcon Chess since 1995, and we still weigh whether King's moving liberally one or more would be more effective. Any other Rook arrival square than over and adjacent seems more like two moves.
The 'one or more' and 'two or more' options for King in castling are both in the 1996 patent claims themselves. [Falcon Chess did not originate with a Chess V.P. article in 2000.] See the other major Falcon Chess article from the next year 2001 on CVP, which was written in 1996 -- being the US Patent text itself -- based on inventors' notebook back to December 1992. Anyone can use this form of modified free castling, as I have called it, in any variant. I have no idea whether it was original with my Falcon Chess claims in 1996. Probably not. It is not crucial to the 8x10, 9x10, and 10x10 Falcon games; what made them patentable was the Falcon move itself in combination with other pieces in specific embodiments. I think both the castling forms are correct ideas in order to perfect large Chesses generally.
Where Grotesque's form of castling used before, from Falcon Chess Patent Text Excerpts copied on this CVP, the two sentences before 'Conclusions, Ramifications and Scope': 'Still another variation modifies free castling, whereby the squares on which the King can stop are one fewer in number excluding the square closest to the King's initial position. This arrangement is intermediate between free castling and orthodox castling.' Written in 1996, the idea may have been used in an earlier patent but not spilled over to Pritchard's 1994 ECV.
In effect David Paulowich has invented or covered in his Carrera Chess comment 21.9.04 all the possible arrays by 'Carrera Random Chess' and its obvious extrapolations. CVP 'Free Castling Rule' written by Roger Cooper explains the Italian Rules prevalent before 1900. Chess Cafe's Tim Harding, recently cited in 'underpromotion' discussion, has old Kibitzer column 1998 'Bring Back Free Castling.' They like to alternate among Fischer Random, Free Castling and such as different scoring systems for Draws, in order to put life back into 64-square 'Mad Queen Chess'.
Caïssa Britannia. British themed variant with Lions, Unicorns, Dragons, Anglican Bishops, and a royal Queen. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Charles Gilman's creative CV articles and games could be accessed more readily if he would take the suggestion Fergus Duniho made to him about a year ago to become a CVP member. As well, it would be easier for anyone to agree or to cite Gilman's generally interesting Comments. That way too Comments can be revised if necessary, obviating repetition and [in cases of some other commenters] enabling speed-reading through long-windedness.
Falcon Chess: Background and Patent Text Excerpts. With background summary of chess variants.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Not having found it in any prior art, I submit that 'Modified Free Castling' is invented and first appears in this methods Patent from 1997. Claim 6 reads: 'The method of claim 5 wherein said castling move allows said king to move two or more squares toward the rook and the rook to move over said king to the adjacent square.' Claim 7 reads: 'The method of claim 5 wherein said castling move allows said king to move one or more squares toward the rook and the rook to move over said king to the adjacent square.' Both Castling maneuvres thus restrict Rook's placement from the freer Italian Rules. Even today only one game duplicates the method for castling. MFC can be used in any CV, for it appears peripherally above as dependent claim. A related form is used in Super-Capablanca Chess(Pritchard's ECV) allowing King to move 2,3 or 4 on a larger board.[I approached MFC from a programming perspective C++ at the time, foreseeing problem of dual decision for placement of R and K]
RBFNKQNFBR (Ra Ra.), or Templars' Falcon Chess. The a- and j-pawns are doubly protected, and the centralized knights are something to see. Falcons themselves cannot cover pawns without gaps in one or both ranks. Other arrays that protect all pawns at the outset follow. FBRNKQNRBF, or Pyramids' Falcon Chess. FRNBKQBNRF, or Cheops' Falcon Chess. Fischer-Random-Chess-like, FC claims cover all 453,600 possible initial positions (not all of them named) of the established piece mix on 8x10, 9x10, and 10x10 and larger. The operable words in claim 9(d):'...all at predetermined locations each on one of the squares.....' Still more arrays protecting all Pawns switch K and Q away from e- and f-files. BRNKFFQNRB, or Horus' Falcon Chess. RNBKFFQBNR, or Osiris' Falcon Chess. Thus specific drawings from 2000 FC article in CVP are only prototypical.
Alice Chess. Classic Variant where pieces switch between two boards whenever they move. (2x(8x8), Cells: 128) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Are Chess and Chess Variants separate like Alice's 'Through the Looking Glass'? Has 14th World Champion Vladimir Kramnik even heard of Alice Chess, re-recognized now at CVP? Would #6 Peter Leko play Ultima? Contrariwise, are CVP readers even aware a World Championship match takes place now in Switzerland between Kramnik and Leko? Would perennial #1 Kasparov hold Recognized Chess Variant Kriegspel in high regard? Or #7 Michael Adams think RCV Avalanche Chess worth anything? Well there are Fischer and Random Chess, and a photograph in Pritchard's ECV of #9 Judit Polgar (and sisters) playing Intense C, being a variant neither known nor recognized here. Probably the realms will remain separate and unequal between Chess and CVs, at large most of the games played being Chess.
Game Courier Tournament #1. A multi-variant tournament played on Game Courier.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Disagreeing with implied point of RLavieri, I am glad I decided at last minute not to participate in first tournament because of ridiculous way time controls worked out. I think a game should somehow be completed in couple weeks or month at most. Relatedly some non-tournament recreational GC games become unpleasant when an opponent makes several moves a day, then disappears for weeks. In other venues for Chess, games finish the same day. I have no idea who is 1st/2nd in your Tourn.#1, but not to be impressive when pace is slower than slow Correspondence Chess. No doubt there are other rewards for having participated, but such is perspective on Time Controls.
That last suggestion, Roberto, sounds right without its being 'Rapid Tournament'. Just controls in hours on specified day(or two), one game at a time. Not so limited time as orthodox chess today since CVs have not established openings, but like Chess tournaments 30 and 100 yrs. ago where a single game may take even two days. Then also there is more interest to view one in progress.
With 2000 games within CVP I think a tournament could evolve from a list of wholly new games, no duplications necessary at all. I don't see Modern FIDE Ch. on anyone's list, so why Shogi, Xiangqi, Alice again? This is supposed CV Page not orthodox. I like Antoine's extension of RL's blocks for moves, even if spacings stretch out to month, six, seven weeks for one game.
100 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.