Comments by LarryLSmith

Kudos, Mats.

Sorry for the delay. I had to check out those games.

Being a fan of both abstract and ancient games, I found these board games
quite enjoyable. Simplicity should never be considered a negative.

=============================================================

I have been thinking that the 'bullet' pieces could act as blockers on
the field. Their introduction could be the result of a specific action
during the play, such as a capture. They also should be movable, or
re-movable, under certain conditons to prevent the play from reaching a
stale position.

This is really cool.

If it is either inexpensive to purchase or easy to self-assemble, it will
go a long way in the real world application of a lot of 3D Chess variants.

I look forward to more detail about this product.

Must have missed the initial posting of this game, probably on holiday at the time. Being a Ringworld fan, I would have definitely checked it out earlier.

Looks interesting. I have to try out a few games before I rate it. But at first glance I am swayed toward Good or better.

If noone has yet made a Zillions implementation of this game, I would be happy to take a stab at it. Just give me a little time.

Thanx for the info.

Couldn't recall the name. I knew that it had be more than forty years old,
since I played it in the 70s.

I definitely recommend this one. It really stimulates the gray cells. ;)

Don't know if this has been pointed out, or whether this is a good spot to
do so, but ...

I've noticed that the drop-down menu appears and stays on several pages,
without having run the mouse over the Chess Variants logo. In fact, it does
so at the Comments page.

This also blocks the view on many other pages, making it difficult to read
some.

Probably just a simply initialization error in HTML. I could go look for
it, but I'm getting old and find I don't really have time for the small
stuff. ;)

A piece converted by an 'undead' switches sides. So a Black 'undead' Bishop would convert a White 'live' Pawn to a Black 'undead' Pawn. 

And players are not permitted to convert their own. Their 'undead' fight for them.

One of the tasks of Pawns is to offer an advantage in the potential
exchange. Being the lowest of rank, trading one(or more) of these for a
power piece can offer a significant advantage in the game.

Thus this is usually a weak and numerous piece. An army for the player.

Its promotion also can offer a significant material advantage, creating a
focus of contention while in play.

At what point can a Pawn no longer be considered such. Does freedom of
movement negate this title? Does movement beyond a single step?

I would advocate that the least powerful(and most numerous) piece of any
game might be designated a Pawn, regardless of its particular powers and
movement.

I would suggest in a large game with this few pieces that the Pawns attack
both diagonal and triagonal. The White Pawns only changing levels upward,
and the Black Pawns downward. Though I might allow both to make these level
changes while attacking to any available cell. Technically this allows the
Pawns to retreat, but since they advance a level it all evens out. ;-)

Also the Knights might be best if allowed the moves of the Super Knight of
3D Chess. That is the (0,1,2), (1,1,2) or (1,2,2) moves.

The Rook might also be allowed the planar movement. This would greatly
speed up the game, and provided a piece which effectively mates the
'slippery' 3D King. I would not give this type of move to any other
piece.

The Bishop might also be allowed the triagonal slide. The sames goes for
the Queen. Though with their diagonal slide, they attack their opposites
from the start. So there might need to be some form of restriction for
sliders when changing levels. How about this: they may only perform level
changing slides if friendly pieces are present on levels which they pass
through. This could effectively restrict their level change to one. And at
the start, they could only change two levels. This rule could also be
applied to the planar Rook.

And the twin pennies have hit the table. ;)

There is a Zillions implementation of this game, for those who have the engine. This can demonstrate the game's playability.

If you find this variant difficult to comprehend, you might want to avoid the Curved Space variant. That one will make ya go 'sparrow'. As of this time, it has avoided coding for the Zillions engine. It has a large number of variables, and I've yet to figure how to get the platform to handle them.

Check out:

http://webspace.webring.com/people/gi/interrupt27/ST3d/NotationST3DChess.txt

Another idea about the 3x8x8 3D field. Restricting the King from translating to a similar cell which is attacked on the middle level. So that a King could not move from the bottom level to the top d4 cell if the d4 cell of the middle level was attacked by the opponent.

And a player could trap an opposing King with their own. For example, a King on the top a1 cell could pin an opposing King on the bottom b2 cell by simply translating to the b2 cell of the middle level. Neither King would directly attack the other in this position, and the King on the middle level could still 'release' this trap by translating to the top level.

This might greatly aid in the endgame.

This is a broken link. Here's the new address:

http://webspace.webring.com/people/gi/interrupt27/Jetan/jetan.htm

My website has changed location. Again.

http://webspace.webring.com/people/gi/interrupt27/home.htm

An aspect of Chinese Chess is that certain pieces are primarily defensive(Elephants and Ministers). Also that the both players need to maintain offensive pieces to prosecute the game.

These values can tax a simple depth-search program. Demanding at least a few extra computational considerations.

Here's something interesting:

http://www.comedycentral.com/videos/index.jhtml?videoId=222671&title=games-the-annihilator

The link should read:

http://www.chessvariants.org/membergraphics/MZcentaurroyalan/CentaurRoyal.zip

It is easy enough to simply say that a game is somehow 'damaged' or 'incorrect'. It is another to specifically demonstrate these claims.

So far, those who have posted negative comments about this variant have done so without specific examples to demonstrate their positions. And to apparently done so to merely draw attention to their personal variants is very uncool.

To exactly extrapolate XiangQi to the hexagonal field may prove virtually impossible. For various reasons which have been stated further down the thread. The best a developer can hope is a hexagonal game which has the 'flavor' of XiangQi. And, yes, there are a large number of variants which have attempted to do this.

So to expect any hexagonal game of XiangQi to exactly match each and every dynamic of the square field is just silly thinking. Or is it simply forcing a personal viewpoint as an implied standard?

I look forward to anyone who can demonstrate that this particular game is 'flawed'. This should be done with a specific in-game demonstration. To further justify there should be an example of how the player reached, or forced, this supposed 'bad' position.

Just a little history of planar pieces.

In 1997, D.E. Matson simply named the 3D planar pieces; 3D Rook(orthogonal), 3D Bishop(diagonal) and 3D Queen(orthogonal/diagonal).

In 2004, Prince was published at TCVP.

And in 2004, LiQi was published at the Zillions-of-Games site.

The Mad Queen variant is not really 'wrong' or 'damaged'. It is just
simply becoming 'simplified' in the collective consciousness.

Eventually(not tomorrow), it will be superseded by another variant(just as
it superseded previous variants during its time). What that one will be is
totally conjecture at this point in time.

But allow me to conjecture(or predict). The 'next chess' could be 3D.
This is simply a logical extension of the wargame. Will it be a 3D
extrapolation of the Mad Queen variant? Or some other creature entire.

Let the argument continue(hopefully rational). Maybe we'll dig this gem
from our brains one day. ;-)

This is a beta version Zillions implementation of Rebel Fury. I have play-tested for the last week, but would be happy if someone else took a hard look.

If an error is found, please create a ZSG file and send me a copy. Along with a short description of the problem.

For a challenging game, I suggest that the Zillions engine be run at least at Strength 6, mid-range Variety and Infinite Time. This can take a lot of time to receive a response(pratically all day), but your patience will be rewarded.

Thanks in advance.

In the pursuit of mathematical definitions for games and their pieces, one
of the basic qualities, often over-looked, is fun. Primarily because it is
impossible to fully quantify, but also it is very subjective.

Allow me to point out a game which I find quite enjoyable. This is V. R.
Parton's Royal Fury. One which he claimed as a futuristic form of Chess.
It contains many pieces of power, both strong and strange. Therefore it is
un-forgiving in its play. One mistake can lead to disaster.

I had written a Zillions implementation, primarily for my personal
use(since it can be difficult to find human opponents who were willing to
risk such a game), to test out the potential of this game. And discovered
its high level of aggravation(a quality which I thoroughly enjoy). Also,
that Zillions was really not up to the task of prosecuting a good form of
play with this game.

I even tried various alternate set-up patterns to see if there was an
optimum. And discovered that Parton's was most probably the best(at least
in comparison to those I had attempted). So I now accept its master's
wishes.

Like Nemoroth, Royal Fury has pieces which affect and are affected by
other pieces. This can be a source of great frustration for many new
players. Yet I find this quality of frustration(primarily within myself)
again enjoyable.

I point all this out to demonstrate an aspect in the nature of fun. Not as
an absolute value but simply as a subjective facet. Other might not enjoy
such games, nor should they be forced to play such(this would be seriously
contrary to the nature of fun). But there are many in this world, whose
population is numbered in billions, who might enjoy an occasional game of
Royal Fury.

I gladly apologize to any who have found my comments offensive, or even
inappropriate. I had hoped that by approaching the subject of 'the piece
which shall not be named'(humor) from both a serious and a humorous angle
that conversation would evolve rather than continue along the redundant
path it had taken.

Obviously I was being pollyanna-ish.

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

BTW, the term 'the piece which shall not be named' refers only to the Falc--- Oh God! I gone blind!

Those planar pieces which are not restricted by occupancy of their attack plane might actually be classified as 'hook-movers'.

The restriction of planar pieces might seem a little draconian, but only during the early portion of the game. As the field clears, these pieces begin to rise exponentially in threat.

A further restriction was developed because of the dynamics of the diagonal(and triagonal) planar piece. This was that all the cells within the planar move must exist on the field. Though developers and players are not strictly bond by this rule.

For a nice(or so I think) 2D game which demonstrates planar moves, try LiQi. It utilizes the same equipment as the Mad Queen(but it does not restrict the diagonal planar piece). There's also a Zillions implementation.

That's one of the primary hurdles in developing an algorithm,
foreknowledge of the dynamics of the game.

A generic algorithm could prove impossible to apply to all games. Unless
such was written so that sub-functions could be added and manipulated.
These sub-functions could either increase the amount of data that the
algorithm considers, or even truncate it.

The programming language for such sub-functions would need to be extremely
flexible.

Right now I am studying Axiomatic to determine its strength and how(or if)
it can be used in creating strong adjustable algorithms.

Here's an idea. How's bout applying Shogi drops?

Such would count as a move during the turn, and the introduced pieces would be placed in any vacant cell adjacent the activating Chief.

Games with multiple moves per turn will seriously bog down most search
algorithms. The increased potential of field positions does tend to
exponentiate.

What can 'assist' these plodders is some form of 'intuitive' step in
the depth search? Intuition being the ability to reach conclusions with
incomplete information.

[Somebody has probably already done all the following, but I merely give
them as an example.]

Humans(most anyway) look beyond their current move toward a position which
often there may not be a clear path. Sometimes this is simply a desire
which motivates the play and may actually never be achieved. A programmer
might accumulate enough data to create a database of 'favored' field
positions which the 'AI' could then use to influence its overall play.

Another 'intuitive' leap could be the assumption that a series of turns
would involve a specific number of pieces. Focusing the search on a
specific series of moves and exchanges involving only these pieces. As the
ply depth increase, those pieces of this group which were removed from play
would not be replace by others which were earlier discarded(new pieces
introduced during the search, whether by promotion or changing sides, might
be considered part of this evaluated group). Of course, these groups could
not simply be made up of the 'best' pieces on the field.

There are many possibilities to these 'intuitive' leaps. Games can be
evaluated in a variety of ways. A programmer needs to think beyond the
linear progression of turns. Maybe a search engine which works
backward('seeing' a future position and attempting to un-create it to the
current position).

Thanks for the heads-up on the info, Omar.

Kinda thought the piece values would be based upon not only their rank(power hierarchy) but also upon their position in relation to the opposing pieces. For example, the Elephant would be a very powerful piece but the opposing Elephant could lower that value simply by being within its area of movement(and this effect could be mutual). Blocking an equal, or even lower, ranked piece could be considered an asset to its value. 

Particularly when it relates to Rabbits. Keeping the opposing Rabbits as far from their last rank could be considered a positive field position. So, not only the value of the Rabbit could be based upon its particular position on the field but the values of all the player's Rabbits could be used to calculate an effective field position.

And Freezing would also be a value. The piece which is 'frozen', and the pieces which is doing the 'freezing', could have their overall value(or simply a sub-value) modified by this condition. This could also be further modified by the positions of other pieces in relation to these.

I've already coded a ZRF so that the engine 'randomly' initiates a set-up pattern for both sides. This allows me to test out a large number of potential set-up patterns. Of course, the current code is rather dim, being able to only look-ahead a few full turns. But I can manually create possible positions on the field and see how they will play out(if I have a lot of patience).

A simple translation of this code into Axiom will be the first step of the project.

I used 'active' Pawns on both levels. Of course, this did get a little tedious during opening development. But here's an idea(not mine).

Dan Beyer created an interesting 3D Pawn which extended through the levels of the field, occupying the cells above and below it.

The same might be done on this field. The two Pawns which occupy the same positions on each level would move as a unit to the same destination cell of each level. But would be captured as individuals. This would mean that as a unit they would simply move as Mad Queen Pawns, but when one was captured the other is now free to exercise its 3D pattern in this game.

When capturing as a unit, only one of these two moving Pawns need take an opponent. Needless to say that if a friendly piece occupies the similar target cell of the other level such a capture would not be permitted.

This would speed up the opening while allowing a sufficient 'barricade' against the advancing opponent. And if the two Pawns were able to maintain their unit upon promotion, the player could gain two seperate power pieces. Thus assuring the players of necessary material in the endgame.

Of course, if a single Pawn moves to a similar cell on one level as another friendly Pawn on the other they would then be considered a unit and be moved as such from that point.

Just a thought.

Throughout history there have been occasions where persons have purged
society's database. Libraries burned, authors executed, inventions
destroyed. All for the reason of simplifying their existence and
controlling the common man.

Did this improve mankind's state? Or did this actually cripple mankind's
intellectual evolution? The latter was most likely the case.

Chess has evolved from simplicity to it current complexity. The thinking
person would realize that it will continue to evolve in complexity rather
than slide back into simplicity. If only to continue to challenge the
mind.

Whereas, before the last of half of the twentieth century, most people had little contact with others outside their direct environment. Their exposure to ideas outside that environment was rare or often slow to arrive. Now, with the Net, all those developing concepts which might have gone un-noticed can be presented to an enormous audience. To evaluate and/or play.

No one should be forced to appreciate any particular form of game. This
would be self-defeating of the concept of play. Which is a part of the very nature of humans.

Likewise, those who desire to either promote a particular form of play or
do not appreciate other forms should respect their fellow players. If they desire to apply particular parameters to the development of their
particular games, they are well within their rights. But to demand such
compliance from others is only a high state of hubris.

Consider a mind which has existed within a 'box', surrounding by what it
knows within this domain. If it is allowed to peek outside and view the
infinity of chaotic potential, it may recoil in fear rather than amazement(or amusement). Unable to accept or comprehend. Such a mind should not be harassed to accept such a challenge. Merely pitied.

Thanks for the kudos.[blush]

I will admit that Nemoroth had the strongest influence on this variant. Its interlocking conditions inspired me. But rather than make them 'painful' to consider, I opted for a more 'logical' approach to this interactivity. Not saying that I succeeded, just a goal.

Once again I've updated the rules for this game.

Let me first apologize to those who are adverse to unfinished games being published at this site. I primarily presented this form of play as an example of a game which would be difficult to get a computer program to play well. Obviously, these rule changes have reduced that difficulty.

Again let me thank Joe Joyce for the discussions which resulted in the modification of this game.

The game can definitely let a player recover from an error. Maintaining the exchange ratio appears to be necessary.

I anticipate that the current game I'm playing will exceed 70 turns. Looking at the potential of a hundred-turn game will often scare the impatient. ;-)

Has anyone determined the various combinations of pieces needed in the endgame? I like the pattern that a Minister and Dabbaba take when cornering the opposing King.

One way to influence a simple look-ahead is to establish goals within the
game. For example(just spit-balling here), the creation of a particular
Pawn structure. The engine would modify its evaluation of the play to
include achieving this particular condition.

Each of these 'goals' might be weighted for both priority and field
condition.

The engine can be easily 'tricked' by having the positive or negative
conditions of these 'goals' affect its evaluation of each plys. The
opposing player's achievement of these same goals can also influence the
evaluation.

There could even be the field position whereby the conditions and/or
priority of these goals may change.

I have updated the rules, limiting the number of Workers on the field for each player to eight.

With a little play-testing and a lot of discussion with Joe Joyce, it was determined that unlimited Workers always allowed the first player a significant opening advantage.

This restriction actually plays rather nice. With the limitation on Workers follows a limitation of potential introductions, so each player must consider these careful.

And this also brings the game closer to being quantified. ;)

Summoning allows the movement of pieces between the 9x9 and 8x8 fields. Notice neither Æther nor Codex are eligible to change fields.

The player's Æther would only negate the opposing Elements.

I worked up a Zillions implementation of Ecila several years ago. But
unfortunately the graphics were rather poor, so I abandoned it. I've
still got the code somewhere. I'll probably dig it out and try again.

You might say that the game itself is my perspective. You yourself are presenting another.

Prespectives are neither good nor bad, simply subjective. And people justify their perspective with all kinds of data. But it often boils down to personal preferences.

The best way to prove an 'error' is to demonstrate how, from the start of this game, one player might exploit some peculiarity to their advantage each and every time against their opponent. For example, if the Red player always won following a particular form of opening development.

Else, any peculiarity that a game has is simply that. Peculiarity. Not an error.

I look forward to any sample games which you accumulate.

A simple form of Shogi/XiangQi hybrid would be to have drops in a XiangQi
game. But this does not answer the field size.

Are you claiming that this particular form of endgame position is impossible in XiangQi?

I think that I have figured out what the problem is. It is a matter of perspective. You simply 'expect' this game to play exactly like XiangQi. 

Just take a deep breath, relax and let it go. ;-)

(You might have captured Red's Horse at f4 on turn 3, sacrificing your Horse and eventually saving that Chariot on turn 5. An equal exchange of material, rather than what did occur which placed you in a negative position in relation to your opponent.)

I believe that it was a reference to an error in the Index Information for this game. Probably should have been stated a little clearer.

I've made the correction.

Check out the Zillions implementation if you need further explanation of the piece movements.

Or check out the game that Joe Joyce and I are playing on Game Courier at this site.

This varaint has extremely little to do with Go or Reversi. It has more in common with the larger Shogi varaints.

The Kanji used in the Zillions implementation are my development. They are a blocky stylized form, rather then the brush-stroke form.

These that are currently on this page, I cannot remember where I got them. Though I was not happy with them(there were several different styles) and changed the ones at my personal webpage. (Also added another playing piece) Unfortunately, the update was not reflected here, but the Zillions implementation contains them.

I regret that I am unable to create other Kanji in block form. With so many possible characters, it could take my entire life(what's left of it, anyway) to accomplish this.

The power of this Panthan was needed to counter the Flier on this field.

I've posted a Zillions implementation of this game. It should be up sometime soon.

If the Maharaja had a row of Shogi Pawns, might this balance the game?

Just a thought.

A restriction of one Pawn to a file, even when moving ringwise, might prove interesting. The Pawns would develop as in the original game, but after one is captured its neighbors would be able to shift to its file.

And with their ringwise move, the Pawns now are able to defend one another.  So a form of Pawn structure might be developed. This is probably essential with the increased power of the other pieces in this game.

I had considered a hexagonal Jetan.

The Flier would have a footprint that spanned a six-cell-sided hexagonal area. Thus the field might need to be twelve-cell-sided to accommodate this piece.

If you maintained the original number of pieces(with only an extra Padwar and Flier to cover the extra diagonal pattern of the hexagonal field), this would leave a very large open area on this field. The opening portion of the game could be tedious.

While re-visiting the comments for this game, I realized that I had not given it a rating. So now I correct that oversight.

I've finally accepted that this game will be extremely difficult to code. So for the sake of my own sanity I have given up such an attempt. But it has been fun trying. Like hitting myself with a hammer. :)

This is not to say that it will not eventually be coded. I just realize that it will probably need its own dedicated program to accomplish this. And such a project will be merely a labor of love(or obsession) because there will probably never be sufficient monetary reward to cover this effort.

If anyone decides to make such an attempt, they have my sympathy. ;-)

For those who are interested, this is a record of the Game Courier game between John Smith and myself:

   Red(J. Smith)	Black(L. Smith)

1. Ca(b2)-e2		S-e7
2. S-e5			H(h8)-e9
3. S-e6			SxS
4. Ca-h6		S-i5
5. S-g4			S-a5
6. S-g5			CaxS
7. E(g1)-e5		Ca-i6
8. CaxH			HxCa
9. CaxS+		H-d6
10. S-i3		S-g6
11. H-g4		CaxCa+
12. M(f1)-e3		HxS
13. HxS			ExH
14. S-i4		H-f3+
15. G-f1		CaxCh
16. Ch-i3		Ch-b4
17. ChxH		ChxCh+
18. G-e2		Ch-g2+
19. G-f1		S-c6
20. Resigns

By initially concentrating on a defensive game, I was able to gain material advantage. John made the error of over-valuing the opening effectiveness of the Cannon on this hexagonal field and lost both early in the game. Once this occurred, I was able to quickly press an assault on his General, taking out both of his Chariots in the bargain. If he had not resigned I would have easily mated his General.

Have you considered that with this particular field's shape that the Soldiers may be forced into positions of ineffectiveness. The back rank of this field radiates away from the 'palace', allowing the potential of the Soldiers moving beyond the 'palace' and unable to return.

Of course, this is only a small 'problem'.

This could be corrected by moving the rank forward, either level or higher than the 'palace'. But then you risk bringing the Chariots into a position where they will have quick access to the field. But this could be handled by placing them in a position where there would need to be the development of at least one or two pieces before they could be brought out. Oh, wait, that's what I did in Xiang Hex.

By your own admission, you have not thoroughly play-tested this game. So any claims of superiority are spurious. May I suggest that next time you wish to brag about your creation that you resist the urge to denigrate someone else's.