Comments by LarryLSmith

Berse appears to be a form of bersim, which is a flower.

A very nice game.  Interesting playing field, pieces and rules.

As to the idea of using other shapes to denote cells in non-cubic fields
within a 2D medium, a simpler form might be to have points with colorized
radiating lines noting the various directions.  Like Chinese Chess, pieces
would move from point to point.

Although this might also be confusing as lines would criss-cross one
another without actually intersecting.  But this is where colorization
would come in handy.

But I don't think it is necessary to change the graphics for this
particular game as it is quite understandable in its current form.

The following is a form of time travel chess worked out by Jens Meder and
myself.  It involves the use of Checkers as markers.

All pieces can be warped either from the future or into the future.

A piece is time-warped from the future by 'cloning' a piece located upon
the field.  A duplicate piece preforms a legal move from the location of
the 'original' piece.  The 'original' piece is denoted with a number
of red checkers, up to six.  The player is allowed to move either
'duplicate' and 'original' on subsequent turns.  At the end of each
turn, the player removes one of the checkers from the 'original' piece. 
The 'original' piece is removed from the game with the last of the
checkers.  (If there is no extra piece available for the 'duplicate', a
player can merely mark one of the checkers with a sticker noting the value
of the 'original' piece and use the current piece for the
'duplicate'.)

A player time-warps a piece into the future by placing a number of black
tokens, up to six, with it.  Such a piece is considered to have
'dis-appeared' and not allowed to be move from its cell until it
'reappears' in the future.  Other pieces are allowed to move through and
upon a cell occupied by such a piece.  At the end of each turn, the player
removes one of the checkers from this piece.  When all the checkers are
gone, it has 're-appeared'.  Any other piece, regardless of owner, which
is located on the cell of a 're-appearing' piece is considered captured
and removed from the game.  The  're-appearance' of a piece is automatic
and not considered a turn in itself.

Each player is only allowed one warp, either to the future or from the
future, to exist during a turn.  Since the checkers are not removed until
the end of the turn, a player must wait to the next before creating a new
warp.  A player is not allowed to add checkers to a warp.

The game is won by check-mating the opponent King or capture of an
'original' piece of a time-warp from the future.  The latter condition
of this rule is due to a paradox, since a captured 'original' piece
would then be unable to warp back in time.  And yes, the King can
time-warp into the future to avoid a current check.  And the King can
time-warp from the future, its 'duplicate' would be subject to the
check-mate portion of the rule while the 'original' is now subject to
the capture portion of the rule.

Robert,

Roberto and I have been in e-mail discussion about the implementation of
this game.  He has volunteered for the graphics.

I have worked up a number of ideas on the handling of the code.  There
being several ways to approach each of the various conditions in this
game.  

We should establish a discussion group specific for individuals interested
in participating in this project.  It would need to be a location which
allows the posting of data files, so participants can easily exchange the
lengthy examples of coding which will become part of this implementation.

I like it.  I like it.  I like it.

The opponent Mato to’a are unable to keep up with the stone-throwing
Ariki.  So the field can become littered with its deposits.

In addition to the goal of a cell, the win by immobilizing the opponent
Moais is a nice condition.

Nice work.  The rules are not complex but the game-play will definitely
challenge.

A nice simple formula for time control of the tournament:

(maximum time length of tournament)/(maximum number of moves allowed in
the particular game)=(maximum alloted response time)

(number of moves allowed)=(total number of full turns allowed)*(number of
players in the particular game)

If a player fails to respond within the alloted time, they would
automatically forfeit the game regardless of their current position or
material gain.

You've got to be cruel.

Since this is a game which involves the goal of a stalemate, the
possibility of a cluttered field is actually desired.  A player would be
wise not to impede their own progress with stone-throwing.

Capturing the opponent's Ariki will be an in-game strategy.  With three
of them, this will be a tough objective to capture them all.  But the
potential is there.  Impeding this piece's moves and stone throws would be a good tactic.

And once a player loses all their Ariki, they might not have the ability
to make their cell goal but they still might capture the opponent Moais. 
Or even to draw the game.

The Mato to’a can only be fully impeded by their own stones or enemy
pieces(not enemy stones).  They cannot be captured.  Send them into the fray.

Remember that the Moais can move swiftly across the field, it is merely
dependent on the connectivity of its stones.

The fact that a computer program has difficulty playing this game does not
negate its potential.  In fact, it increases it.  Once a game has been
fully quantified, although it may have a high degree of difficulty, it
becomes trivial.

For now, this game might best be played between two humans.  Once certain
patterns of play can be discovered, a good computer program might be
worked out.

Very clever.

I wonder if Joseph will be developing designs for other chess variant
pieces.  Please let the answer be 'Yes'.

In XiangQi, it is suppose to be illegal to expose your King to capture. 
But these students might merely be playing these games through to capture
in order to learn its nuances.  That way they can learn to visualize all
these potential lines of attack on the King and realize a 'checkmate'
position.

Then again, it might be a local form of play. ;-)

Instead of the win-conditon being the presence of the King within a
particular zone, make the win-conditon also the absence of the King on the
rest of the field.

This is your current condition:

  (win-condition (White Black) (absolute-config King (promotion-zone)))

Make it:

(win-condition (White Black) 
(and
(absolute-config King (promotion-zone))
(absolute-config (not King) (not-promotion-zone))
)
)

You will have to define the not-promotion-zone, which will be all the
cells that are not part of the normal promotion-zone.

The Zillions engine will now have the 'urge' to move that King into the
promotion-zone.

Replacement pieces for Pawn promotion are obtained from those which were
captured.  Rooks are often turned up-side down to represent extra Queens. 
If none are available, use a Checker under the promoted Pawn to represent
the new Queen.

Pawn promotion may also include other pieces besides the Queen.

I'm sure that the game might be interesting.  But I gave up reading after
the first page.

There is probably a more concise way to impart the directions for this
game.  The instructions, although colorful, were a little convoluted.  The
graphics, although attractive, contain excessive amount of material which
did not add to the move description but actually confused.

I will download each of these pages and peruse them at my convenience. 
But I anticipate a rather long slog through these instructions.

The King moves two cells as a first move only if it performs a 'castling'
move.  Other than that particular condition, it always moves one cell.

So, don't move your Hero on the first move. ;-)

The position assures that the Hero will not come into play without at
least a few development moves.  Of course, a player could trade Heroes.
And leave their King file open.

It is a nice game, including the variants.

Another consideration would be 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.

A hoax?  I'd like to hear Leno's comment on that.  If this is truly the
case, it is one of the most intricate.

And if something is not comprehended how can it ever be played?  How do
either of the players know if an action is legal.  They could resort to
flicking pieces across the table at each other.

I can completely understand the source of this topic.  I know that there
has been several requests that the Archer in Field Chess be re-named
because it doesn't have the 'shoot'.  I am one of the guilty.

The naming of playing pieces is the privilege of the developer.  Games
with themes have often given names to pieces which might otherwise have
previous designations.  And new pieces are sometimes given the title of
pieces which are barely similar.

The standardization of piece names is an ardent task.  There are a lot of
published games that would need reconciliation, some of which the authors
are no longer available for such.  In the compilation of a list of piece
descriptions, there might be several different forms.  This means that the
researcher will just have to accept the labor.

There will develop, over time, a common use of certain piece names.  And
these can be tagged as such in the name description.

And whether a particular description of a piece is mentioned will be
totally dependent on the criteria of the list.  What ever this evaluation,
it should be fairly applied.

Well, according to the ZRF non-capturing Pawns promote to other
non-capturing pieces.  This appears very logical.

A very interesting game.  Sort of Alice Chess meets Shogi with boxing
gloves in a knife fight. ;-)

Although Game Theory can be used to quantify real-world events into a Game
Design, a Game Design is not subject exclusively to Game Theory.

Particular aspects of games cannot be quantified as they exist purely on
the emotional level of the players.  For example, how do you evaluate the
potential for frustration or joy?  Each player will react subjectively,
some enjoy frustrating games.

But objective values can be assigned so that a potential developer can
make decisions while designing a game.  But this will not cause a
developer to create a good game.  Their own prejudices will often effect
their design.  Some might never develop a large game while others will not
develop small ones.  And some do not appreciate game with themes, while
others will not try the pure abstract.

I would be glad to assist in making a ZRF of this variant.  Whether or not
it is a 'Frankenstein's Monster' or an 'Ugly Duckling'(both of who
just wanted to be liked by others). :)

Let me deviate a little and discuss the concept of balance in Game Design. 
Most would assume that a perfectly balanced game is the optimal, and this
is often demonstrated by comments about the placement of Bishops (long
diagonal movers) in games.

In a square playing field, there are two distinct diagonal patterns, and
FIDE has offered a Bishop for each of these.  But in Shogi initially the
Bishops occupy only one of these patterns.  Both games are considered
good.  Whether or not a game has Bishops occupying each diagonal patterns
is not the sole foundation for its evaluation.  In fact such imbalances
can be considered a potential factor in the overall strategic dynamic of
the game.  

Both diagonal patterns can be occupied, one diagonal pattern can be
occupied or opposing diagonal patterns can be occupied, the game will
still have the potential of being good.  In fact, there could be no
Bishops in a game, like XiangQi(excluding its Elephants).

'Now now, perfectly symmetrical violence never solved anything.'
----Professor Hubert Farnsworth, Futurama, The Farnsworth Parabox

It is quite easy to construct a real-world board using cardboard, scissors,
straight-edge and a felt-tip pen.  The disc can be made from the same
material.

And the visualization of the Cavalry leap is simply an orthogonal
translation to the second cell(a cell which is oriented in a similar
manner).  For example:
  
 /\  /\
/__\/__\
     
If a friendly piece is at the first, another such translation can be made
in any direction.  It is not meant to be equivalent to the FIDE leap. 
Since this is a triangle field, that particular form of leap is not
possible.  Its similarity to the Ko Shogi Cavalry leap in its ability to
use a friendly piece to continue its particular leap.

Also, the Bishop in Shogi can promote to the Dragon Horse and gain the
ability to step one orthogonal.  Thus being able to shift diagonal
patterns.

And to continue the potential of inner game dynamics.  Most FIDE-style
games allow for Pawns to promote to Bishops.  Thus creating the potential
of Bishops on either diagonal pattern.

So, the initial set-up of the Bishop is not the sole determination of any
game.  And it actually can create definite strategic dynamics.  So a game
most be evaluated in its full potential and not just its initial set-up.

What if a game has a Bishop on a single pattern and there is never the
potential of a Bishop on the other?  Does this, in itself, negate the
value of the game?

Like Fischer's Random Chess.  The Pawn opening can be rather tight but the
nature of the Shogi Pawn makes it interesting..

When the players make their initial set-up, I assume that they are allowed
to create their own individual patterns according to the rules.

Like the Bishop, there are other pieces which occupy specific patterns on a
square playing field.  For example, the Alfil and the Dabbabah.  The first
leaps to the second diagonal and the other leaps to the second orthgonal.

It would take four distinct Dabbabah to occupy each of its patterns, and
eight Alfil of its.  But this is not entirely necessary.  A developer may
choose specific patterns for each of these pieces to influence and thus
encourage particular tactical behaviour during play.

Sacrificing or avoiding the risk of pieces on those patterns during play
can make interesting strategy.  Allowing each player to control particular
patterns will give them both similar advantage, just seperate.

A good example of pattern play is in XiangQi.  The Elephants in this game
are restricted to a limited portion of the field and yet they are
significant during the game.  Being able to properly use these Elephants
can often determine the outcome of the game.

In several Shogi variants, there are also strong pattern pieces.  For
example, the Capricorn which preforms a diagonal hook move.  Usually this
piece occupies a specific pattern at set-up, when captured it is
permanently removed and can only be recoverd by the promotion of another
specific piece on the field.

The Chariot may 'run down' one Soldier, allowing it to capture up to two
pieces.  Sorry for any confusion.

The Chariot's ability to 'run down' an opposing Soldier is similar to
the XiangQi Cannon shot using a screen.  Except that this particular
screen is captured, and it is not necessary that another piece be 
captured following this.

Zillions is a great game engine.  It suffers from the fact that it is
basically a general program, and therefor often fails to correctly
evaluate specific conditions.

This can be solved by creating DLLs for specific games.  But such can
entail time, testing, a compiler and a decent coder.

Yet, even with the strongest program, certain games will often fail to be
quantified.  This should actually be consider a positive, demonstrating
that human thought processes are not merely mechanical and linear.

The primary aim of the basic implementation might be to enforce the rules
of the particular game.  The Zillions Computer opponent could merely be
considered a good teaching aid.  It is through human competition that
games can be truly experienced.  That is the reason for Net Play.

A Catapult carrying a Pawn on the far rank?  Let me quote the rules:

'...upon reaching the last rank, a Pawn is immediately promoted to an
Archer....'

Unless the remaining rules state otherwise, all specific rules are usually
considered absolute.  Privileges are given, not assumed.

The rules state:

'If all of one player's pieces are eliminated before both goal boxes are
occupied by one player, then the player with pieces left is the winner.
Exception: if that player has only one piece left, then the game is
declared a draw.'

And the potential of two Bishops on the same diagonal pattern is extremely
remote.  Why promote to a Bishop when you can get that great Queen?

To resurrect a discussion line and continue the topic of pattern pieces:

In those games which have promote-able 'Pawns' restricted to pieces
which have been previously captured, pattern pieces can offer a further
restriction.

If the game contains pieces bound to specific patterns, such promotions
could be limited when promoting to these.  In other words, if a player has
lost a Bishop and brought a Pawn into the promotion zone, the promotion to
this captured Bishop could be predicated on whether there presently exists
another Bishop within that specific diagonal pattern.

And with those pattern pieces which do not occupy every one of their
specific patterns, a Pawn might be denied promotion to that particular
piece unless it was in the necessary pattern.

These rules would be at the discretion of the developer, and could impact
the over-all strategy of the game.

Info on this game is rather thin.  It is a commercial product and the
developers appear to be keeping a tight rein on its full rules.

It would seem logical that most of the pieces would move according to
common form.  This is apparent with the presence of three Bishops on this
hexagonal field.  There might be some variations with the Pawn and
Knight.

The website states that the Spy is a combination of the Rook and Queen. If
this is true, the Queen might have a different form.  Possibly combining
the Bishop and Knight?  This would make the Spy similar to the Amazon.

But what if this is a mis-print?  What if the Spy is meant to combine the
Queen and Knight?  This would make the Queen standard and the Spy similar
to the Amazon.

Or maybe, the Queen moves like an Amazon and the Spy like a simple Queen.
Makes more sense, structurally.

This is all speculation, possibly designed to encourage a few individuals
to purchase the product to discover the truth.

Well, this 'Newchess' is not exactly entirely new.  It is different and
could be very interesting.  Those who enjoy Hexagonal Chess might find it so.

There is a Shogi form called Curiosity-Alice-Shogi.  I don't know who was
the developer.

It appears to play the same as Alice Chess.  Drops are allowed to re-enter
on either board.

In FIDE, only Knights are allowed to leap other pieces.

Of course this does not include the castling move, which involves either
the Rook 'leaping' the King or the King 'leaping' the Rook. ;-)

Could it be that FIDE needs to hold a convention to decide the fate of the
'Mad Queen'?  It definitely appears that this particular game has
reached its peak.

What other variant might be worthy of world recognition?  It would
definitely have to be much more challenging.  Able to resist
quantification for at least a century.

Leno,

Please feel free to send me anything about this game.  I am truly
interested.

But I must re-iterate that these pages do not do the game justice.

Nice.  But I think Glenn Overby's PromoChess is better.

A small omission in the description of the Running Horse, it should read:

'Running Horse		steps 1 backward orthogonal, leaps to the second backward
diagonal, slides forward orthogonal or forward diagonal'

My apologies but with a document of this size there are bound to be a few
errata.  Hopefully, they are few.

The following is a copy of a recent discussion with Tony about this game:

-------------------------------------------

I've been working on a concept of replacing the shapes and symbols with
simple colors.
 
Black and White would denote ownership, and by themselves represent
Pawns.
 
Red = Rook
Blue = Bishop
Yellow = Unicorn
 
Purple = Knight (Rook+Bishop step or Red+Blue)
Orange = Hippogriff (Rook+Unicor step or Red+Yellow) 
Green = Wyvern (Bishop+Unicorn step or Blue+Yellow)
 
The King and Heir Apparent would be noted by large dots on the faces of
the Black or White piece.  Gold for King and Silver for Heir Apparrent
 
This way all the pieces would be simply round discs which would stack in a
small area.  The top disc would be the Black or White disc. And at a
glance a player would be able to determine the power of a piece.
 
Of course, this would not be viable for someone who might be color-blind. 
So shapes and symbols might be considered the universal.

Moving Rook b1-b4 will block the attack from that Bishop.

Why not try King e1-d2?  The standard rules state that a King cannot be 
left in check, the move is legal for the King.  The only standard rule 
which states that a King cannot moved through an attacked position is 
while castling.

In standard Chess a King may not move to an attacked cell, but d2 is 
not attacked by the Bishop since it will be empty.  The King will not 
be present to be captured by the Bishop on the next move.

Some sources note that the ranging move in Taikyoku can involve the capture
of each and every piece, both friend and foe, which the ranging piece
leaps.

And believe it or not, there are a few individuals in Japan actually
attempting to play this game.

When I was younger I fell for the 'collectible' game series.  I was into
Doomtrooper and Imajica cards.  I spent a lot of my hard-earned cash
attempting to 'collect' these entire series, buying boxes and boxes of
cards.

But these companies enjoyed torturing me, keeping my goal just beyond my
reach.  Doomtrooper increased its volume with the seemingly un-ending
introduction of expansion sets.  Imajica went out of print long before I
could even hope to obtain my goal.

I have shoe boxes filled with these cards, carefully filed and catalogued.
 Not being used or enjoyed, just taking up space in my closet.  And filled
primarily with un-godly numbers of the dreaded common cards.

Now I'm not saying that this game will have the same result.  I will just
be leery of investment into something that I cannot obtain in its entire.

Will the company offer the entire series as a set? or will they dole out
these 'pieces', forcing us to buy endless numbers of the same pieces in
order to obtain that one good piece.  If the latter, I have absolutely no
intention of even considering purchasing a single part of the game.

A very interesting concept.  I would assume that it is not allowed to move
the King-oriented die until there is at least another.

I'm actually making a set for this game.  I have a bunch of blank
half-inch cubes which I use for such purposes.  But instead of marking
them with pips, I'm considering standard chess fonts.  I might draw them
with a felt-tip or print out a sheet of these symbols and cut-and-paste
them on the faces.

To prevent confusion among similarly named games, you might preface it with
the developer's surname.  For example, when referring to this game it
could be called 'Munzlinger's Twenty-First Century Chess'.

There are several other games which suffer from this particular
condition.

Since there were no answers supplied with these two particular chess
problems and the page is over three-years-old, I thought I might offer my
two cents.

Left Side: 1. Qc5+ PxQ, 2. P(b)xP+ Kd5, 3. Rd7++

Right Side: 1. Qe8+ NxQ, 2. Pd8=N+ Kf6, 3. Ne4++

Charles,

Your application of angles is in relation to the orthogonal pattern.  If
you wish to be bound by such restrictions, feel free.

In this simple treatise, the diagonal and triagonal patterns are being
considered as seperate entities.  And all their planar and cubic
potentials are thus expressed in such regard.

Allow me to state that these suggestions are not to be taken as absolute,
either in their regulation or nomenclatures.  They are primarily attempts
to aid developers in thinking outside the box.

The logic of the 90 degree restriction collapses when applied to the cubic 
move within the diagonal pattern and with the simple planar move within 
the triagonal pattern.

Whether or not a game contains pattern-bound pieces for each of its
patterns, being the diagonal in this case, does not negate the value of
the game.

In this case, the game begins with only two 'diagonal'-bound pieces for
each player on a field with a possibility of three.  In both the
two-player and three-player games, each side has these pieces on similar
patterns.

If a game was composed of pattern pieces and each player had sole command
of particular patterns, it might be argued that there was an increase in
the potential of 'draw'.  But this also does not negate the value of the
game.  It would definitely impact the play of the game. 

In fact, a player can take advantage of a pattern in the game if there are
fewer piece which operate in it.  In this game, it could be seen that the
pattern-bound pieces initially 'push' the goal piece into the remaining
pattern.

The un-qualified requirement for all pattern-bound pieces to be
represented for each and every pattern is subjective.  Even in this game,
there is the potential of obtaining a pattern-bound piece for the
un-occupied pattern with promotion.  Granted that this is very un-likely
since a player would most likely opt for a more powerful piece, preferably
one that is not restricted to a pattern of the field.

The basic difference between the Capricorn and the Long-Nosed Goblin is the
potential promotion.

The Capricorn promotes to the Hook Mover, an orthogonal hook-move piece
and more powerful piece as it is no longer bound to a diagonal pattern.

The Long-Nosed Goblin does not promote.

The promotion potential is what often differentiates pieces of similar
initial types of moves.  This allows for particular tactics during play,
obviously making the promote-able piece more desired than the
non-promote-able.

And this applies to pieces with similar initial moves which promote to
different potential promotions.

The interaction between the two sets of chess pieces need a little
clarification.  

Are the light-white pieces allowed to capture both light-black and
dark-black pieces?  Are dark-white pieces allowed to capture both
light-black pieces and dark-black pieces?

If so, what is the purpose for the two-tone sets?

A very nice expansion to V.R.Parton's Sphinx Chess. (Forgive my classical reference.)

The 'king hold' rule definitely improves the play.  The inability to
often pin the opposing king was the major flaw with Sphinx Chess.  This
rule is a very logical and effective cure.

Allowing the Bishop to change diagonal patterns is nice, but might this
particular move be a non-capturing one?  No pressure to change it, just
some fuel for discussion.

I look forward to future developments by this author.

It has been pointed out to me that the Unicorn in this game is not bound to
any particular pattern within the playing field.  This freedom can be a
definite necessity in this game.

Still, within a single Cube, it can take four seperate Unicorns to cover
each of its patterns.  So a player should take this into consideration
when attempting to affect mating positions using these pieces.

Whenever someone asks me about 1D games, this is definitely one that I
recommend.  I think that most can find it an interesting game, not just
Shogi variant players.

I enjoyed coding this one for Zillions.

Very very funny series of articles.  I found its length to be humorous in
itself.  Its convolutions made me laugh.

What would be even more fun would be to add to these with even more
intricately related subjects and materials, such as puzzle positions.  New
stuff can be discovered any time since the game has basically been kept a
secret.  Of course, it should all be presented to the original author for
approval.

Thus elevating this idea of Stanley Random Chess, making it a form of
initiation for the new Chess Variant player. ;-)

Charles,

You have made your dislike for this variant quite apparent in your
previous postings.  To continue making disparaging postings is not very
nice.

Your primary complaint has been the dynamics of the Silver and Gold
Generals.  This aspect was explained to you but you do not wish to
accept.

May I suggest that if you want to continue advocating a different form of
3D Shogi that you do so on another page.

One question: Have you actually attempted to play this game, or has your
observations been based solely on a biased approach?

What a thoroughly enjoyable idea!

Once again, Ralph has proven his position among the CV giants.

It must be kept in mind that attempting to verify the historical background
of SR Chess will prove very difficult for the amateur.  Considering the
extent of the Great SR Chess Purge of the mid-19th century, we are
fortunate that the game has survived.

But for those who are truly interested in the complete origin and rules of
SR Chess, simply logon the ISRCA database.  You will need a T-1000 modem
connection, several tetra-bytes of hard-drive space and the standard
full-length Hellsing data-gloves with Universal Sign Language compatible
software.  Visitors to the database need only use the anonymous password
'giveusakiss' then press the baffing key on your standard Benson
flexi-board.

Contrary to internet rumors, the ISRCA search engine does not conflict
with any existing operating system software.

Does a piece located on the 8x8 or 10x10 field check a King located on the
edge of the 12x12 field when not in the 12x12 turn?

And, if a King is located on the edge of the 12x12 field and it is checked
by another piece located on the edge of the 12x12 field is it considered
mated?

I'm sure that the answer to these questions is 'No', but just need
clarification.  The game does offer some interesting positions.

I agree that this game is excellent.  I did a review of it in Abstract
Games Magazine #16.  

When I first came across the game, I assumed that it was similar to
ShouDouQi(the Jungle Game).  But it plays quite different.

Like ShouDouQi, Arimaa deserves a page at ChessVariants.

During a recent game at SchemingMind, the subject of the weakness of the
Alice Knight brought forward an interesting possible variation to the
rules.

Allow the Knight to capture on both fields.  In additions to the standard
capture move, it would be allowed to capture the destination cell of the
opposing field.  It would still only perform a single capture during a
move, and still be bound to one-half of each field.  And it would still be
restricted from moving to a friend-occupied cell.

This increase in power would greatly improve its influence in the game.

Unless this variant rule has been previously proposed, I suggest that it
be called Alice Knights.

David,

Since a King cannot move to an attacked cell, it could never attack an
opponent King.  But it can participate in the mate by restricting the
movement of the opponent King.

Alex,

En passant is a form of capturing performed by the Pawn upon another Pawn.
 The conditions for this capture are quite specific.  The capturing Pawn
must be located on the fifth rank from the player and in the adjacent file
of the target Pawn.  The target Pawn must have just performed an initial
two-step move which has placed it orthogonally adjacent the capturing
Pawn.  The capturing Pawn then moves to the vacant cell directly behind
the target Pawn and the target Pawn is removed from the field.

The reasoning for this particular form of capture is to allow the Pawn the
option to capture an opposing Pawn which has performed a two-step move,
passing through the cell which would have offered that captured.  The
capturing Pawn is able to obtain that particular position on the field.

Remember that en passant(in passing) can only be performed against an
opposing Pawn which has immediately made a two-step move.  If the player
does not exercise this option on the immediate replying move, they cannot
do so on subsequent turns.

The opportunity to exercise this option may be very infrequent, but can be
quite interesting.

This game definitely challenges the player's ability to extrapolate
positions.  Keeping track of the oscillation of every moved piece and
maintaining some form of strategy, the player is fortunate to be able to
plan more than several moves.

This is also the joy of the game.  A player who desires an easily
comprehensive form might well be warned about the dangers surrounding this
game.  But they should not fear to attempt it.

My favorite variant is the Mirrored Alice set-up, whereby opposing pieces
begin on seperate fields.  This offers a large variety of opening moves.

Keep in mind that vacant Elevators cannot be moved.  So as the game reaches
its finale, the option to manipulate the playing field will be reduced.

Would all the posters to this variant who promised to evaluate it after
trying the ZRF, please do so.

In my opinion, the current level of rating is quite unfair since it is
based on a single posting.

Being an individual involved with the project, rather remotely, I am not
at liberty to make an un-biased judgment.  But if I were, I would rate
this game as 'Excellent'.

Joe,

And here you go posting on Saint Valentine's Day! :-)

Embrace the geek-ness. And remember that dimensions are just a matter of 
 perspective. ;-)

Just a small aesthetic observation about the graphic for the Archangel. 
Swords being short-range weapons, angels are also known to carry spears
which have longer range.

To carry over the motif from the Centaur, it could be a horseshoe with two
crossed spears.

Or the angelic theme might be further emphasized with a pair of wings and
two crossed spears.