[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments by avunjahei
Oh, thank you for the link. Guess it is the first modern chess variant a game score involving a grandmaster{even a worldmaster]is extant.
Years ago I had exactly the same idea, but when I tested it, I didn t like it at all. I guess, to design a game featuring a Royal knight, it needs more than just switching the roles of knight and king.
No well worked out starting array. The opposing Camels can attack the Knights immediately, when they are developed on their most natural squares. Since the Camel is of minor value than the Knight (being a colourbound piece)this makes opening play rather awkward. Superficially the corner squares seem to be a good place for the Camel in the opening. But let us consider to remove them to the b and i files. Opening play would be much less restricted now. That also would have 2 further advantages. 1. The Camel now would have 2 natural developing squares in the 3rd rank instead of only 1 2. One of them would be in competition with the most natural developing square of the Knight. So the player has to choose. All that would cause opening play to be more variable. And finally, involving the Knight in castling seams unnatural. Why not involving the Guard instead? He is more difficult to develop.
can a swapper, used as a bomb, capture more than one enemy piece?
That was quick! Thanks! Great game!
No, please not! But acting as a bomb, how about destroying all adjacent pieces, including friendly ones. This would give more attacking force to the swapper without altering or complicating this piece so much
Hey, it's not my game! I,m just playing it for the first time. A Conversioner ("missionary")fits quite well into Ultima-derived games. But this game is good as it is. Just the Swapper may really be too weak. Since the swapper already is a bomb, enhancing its explosional abilities seems to be the best way to make it stronger while changing as little as possible to the original game.
1. Rococo IS an Ultima variant. You somehow misunderstood me. 2. The Swapper destroys an adjacent piece, not one in line with it. So letting it destroy more than one adjacent piece is only a slight enhancement 3. Ok, so you quit the mutual destruction completely. Your swapper is a positional swapper, a colour swapper and a type swapper. That's actually not a bad idea.
But actually there is no need to alter that game at all. The Swapper is the weakest piece above the pawns and that's it. But it's always funny to find varitions to existing games.
Now I find the Swapper ok, but the pawns too strong. Is there really a need to give them also the power of promotion?
Objectively there is too much power for such a - relatively - small board, but it is nice - though difficult - to play. The Unicorn is not easy to handle, but it is a very elegant piece.
The nonsense book of the week. That chess ever was a dice game is wrong, let alone the other points
I played just one game and I think it's very good. It is a logical and well balanced combination of pieces and gameplay is interesting. Games do not have to be original. Games have do be designed for getting played, that's all.
There should be a rule: don't post games with undefended pawns in the starting array!
Inferior to Hadean Chess. The Flying pieces fit better into the game with more restricted movements. In this ensemble they kinda "swallow up" the rooks and bishops, turning them into inferior pieces, for the flying pieces can do everything what they can do as well.
The Camel attacks the opponent's Knight immediately when both are on their most natural developing square. I think this is a major flaw in games featuring both camels and Knights. Since Camels are worth less this hinders the development of the Knights. It would be better to have the Camels on b and i instead of c and h.
I played it again after long time and regret having given a bad rate to it. Formerly I didn't like that all games are attacks of both opponents on their right side while defending on their left side. Now trying it out again in fact I see no wrong with this predestined mutual races. Also the ensemble of pieces is well well chosen and work well together, like in all of Paulowitch's variants that I know. Although far inferior to FIDE chess it is a nice try.
The starting array is wrong. Betza's sample game has Archbishop and Nightrider changed their places compared to the starting array on the preset. Also, here you would have an unprotected pawn in front of the Archbishop, that can be threatened by the Nightrider on the first move. This cannot have been the intention of the inventor. He also clearly states that the "pieces are distributed to defend all the Pawns."
Jeremy, if you find time, you could look at this game, too. It's no fun to play with 2 bishops of the same colour. (or maybe it is, I'm too conservative...)
Chu Shogi has never been "the dominant form of chess in Japan", let alone "for centuries". This is perhaps a mistake caused by confusion with Sho Shogi (Small Shogi), the 16th century name for the predecessor of Modern Standard Shogi (still without drops), to distinguish it from Dai Shogi (Great Shogi) and Chu Shogi (Middle Shogi). These larger games were popular, but Sho Shogi was the dominant game, even before the introduction of drop rules. Also Chu Shogi is the youngest of the three (15th century), it didn't even have the time to be dominant for centuries, for at the beginning of the Edo period (around 1600)Standard Shogi, promoted by the shogunate, began to oust the larger forms, even though many large variants were invented (and certainly played) at this time
If that's the Manual written by Hodges, I do know it. And you are RIGHT when you say it is first mentioned 100 years EARLIER than I claimed. I apologize. That makes it still younger than Sho and Dai Shogi EXCEPT when you argue that the Heian Dai Shogi was really a kind of Chu Shogi and The later Dai Shogi was the novelty. Dunno, you tell me! But that the Yamashina family had a faible for Chu Shogi is meagre evidence for Chu Shogi ever being more popular than the smaller variant. On the other hand the carpenter Minase Kanenari tell us that between 1590 and 1602 he produced 618 sets for Sho Shog but only 106 sets for Chu Shogi (that's from the web). That also doesn't prove very much. Or does it? But I admit, I just thought that it was commonly accepted among scholars that at least in the 16th century and later Sho Shogi was dominant, and for earlier times we lack proper information. I never claimed Chu Shogi was not a popular game. Just that Sho shogi was more so. I think when Hodges states, that Chu Shogi was the more popular game in the Kamakura period he overstretches the (few)sources we have about the game in this time. Historians do that very often. You should always reckon with that and being published by a University unfortunally does not prevent them from doing so. That the first tsumes and game scores come from Chu- rather than Sho Shogi I really doubt. But i cannot argue against, for I'm on holydays and the web is a very bad source for chess history. If it is right I would be very surprised.
Do you mean the game scores of Yamagata? But they are composed games, aren't they? The first scores of really played games i know are from the early 20th century, but i don't remember where i have that from. Do you know the earliest game scores of Standard Shogi? I don't!
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.