Comments by PeterAronson
E. Gary Gygax, the co-inventor of D&D and chess variant creator, died today at his home in Lake Geneva, Wisconsin. He was 69.
2) Push an opposing stone located adjacent right or left orthogonal to the next right or left orthogonal vacant point,Are pushes limited to one space, or do they go until the next vacant space? IE, if you have a row ---xxo--- is a push by o such that results in --xxo---- legal? Actually, now I think about, does a push cause the pushing piece to move? Would a push in this situation, ---xo---- result in --xo----- or --x-o----?
3) Leap over any number of adjacent friendly stones forward, right or left orthogonal to a vacant point.Does the leap only pass over friendly stones, or can it (after passing over friendly stones) pass over vacant spaces as well? IE, starting with ---ooo--- is o--oo---- possible, or only leaps like --ooo----? (I assume the latter, but the language is not completely clear.)
4) Capture an opposing stone on an adjacent forward diagonal point.Is capture by replacement?
Frequently, for me, the value of a game doesn't become clear until the third or fourth time playing it. I noted that Gary Gifford didn't enjoy his first game of Tripunch but did decide he liked Tripunch very much after playing it twice. I think we should make a requirement that each person judging a game play two versions of it, one as black and one as white.When Tony and I judged the 42-Square Design Contest, we played each game at least twice, and would liked to have played them at least four times each (except we would have gone stark, raving mad, to the distress of our wives and children). I do think it takes at least two plays at a minimum to reasonably evaluate a game.
According to Betza (at least at one time -- his values have varied), a Crowned Knight (Knight + Mann) is worth two Knights (the same as a Cardinal) on an 8x8 board. Because it is a short range piece, it might be worth less on a larger board. On the other hand, it is very powerful in the endgame.
The easiest way to simplify the Chameleon is to disallow the combination of captures; although that can still lead to complex cases where there are multiple possible methods of capture available at the same time.
If it were to be replaced, what would you replace it with? Oddly, this morning I find myself wondering if returning the Ultima Coordinator , discarded during the original Rococo design process would make sense. Yes, it was felt to be unclear, but then, that complaint can be made against the Chameleon as well.
EchidnaAs far as I can recall, the author's family had a copy of Zillions and seemed to think the implementation was correct.The Echidna is a royal piece -- if it is captured, you lose the game. It moves and captures one step diagonally, it can move (but not) capture one step up, down, left or right, and it can capture (but not move without capturing or jump) two steps up, down, left or right.
Leap-capture is employed in Airplane Chess and Zeppelin Chess by the Airplane and Zeppelin, respectively, and it works remarkably well.The Airplane and the Zepplelin are not exactly normal leaping pieces, but rather flying leapers. The ability to pass over friendly and hostile pieces makes them much, much more powerful.
Moreover, Alquerque, as described by Murray, is probably incorrect. Arie van der Stoop has researched the game (Draughts in relation to chess and alquerque, 2005) and has come to the conclusion that it was not at all drawish: Medieval Alquerque.Leaving out the question of whether van der Stoop is any more authoritative than any of the other authors on the subject; while promotion would make Alquerque more interesting, it would still be pretty drawish without forced captures. Even with forced captures, high level Draughts/Checkers tends to be drawish, and endgame tactics make extensive use of that feature.
When we see Checker-Kings, in a game of draughts, jumping two or three pieces at a time diagonally we can see one player quickly go downhill.In Checkers, the dynamics of the game are driven by the 'must capture' rule. Ancestors of Checkers without this rule, such as Alquerque, tend to be very drawish. Combined with the fact that, multiple captures aside, leap capture is generally weaker than replacement capture (because it can be blocked by pieces behind the piece to be captured or by the board's edge), this can make games dependent on such capture hard to force to a win, even when there is a royal piece. Jumping Chess which depends entirely on leap capture, even with the King and the ring board, is probably still too defensive. In the case of Interweave, another game that depends on non-replacement capture, I eventually added a 'forced capture' rule to prevent it from being too defensive, and it too, has Kings.
I've got a question considering mate. What happens when a player mates the other player in the same move its own anti-king gets unchecked (thus being mate too). Who wins then?To repeat what David says in different words: you can't do that. It's the equivalent in regular Chess of moving your King into check in order to check the opponent's King.
It would be simpler to state that it is illegal to make a move leaving or placing your Anti-King in 'check', that is, not attacked by opposing pieces.Well, very likely. I tend to err on the verbose side in my writing.
Is there a castling rule in Seeping Switchers?You use the standard castling rules for Chess with Different Armies
If a piece moves to the eighth rank with a pawn move, I believe it promotes to any piece in the opening array, right ?Correct, since 'The rules of Potential/Demotion Chess are identical to those of orthodox chess, except when noted otherwise.'
As for a 7x7 board without a Queen? Er, I don't know -- there's already too much power for an 8x8 board -- shrinking the board by 23% while retaining two pieces that are effectively Amazons and two that are effectively Cardinals might be even more brutal.
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.