Comments by joejoyce
Joe Joyce wrote on Thu, Aug 19, 2021 12:23 AM UTC:I haven't been following this conversation, but I was in the same situation. Create the revised game using the new name but put links into it to the original page, and edit the original page to link to the revised rules, with notes that the original is being kept for the history and comments. One page more or less won't make that much difference to this site. And you haven't disappeared all that work.
Conservative Capablanca Chess. Alternative, more traditional Capablanca chess setup.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Joe Joyce wrote on Wed, Jun 30, 2021 09:52 PM UTC:This game has been anticipated. David Paulowich posted this in 1997: https://www.chessvariants.com/large.dir/newchan.html
This place needs a historian. Where is George Duke when you need him? Or Jeremy Good?
CwDA: the Shatranjian Shooters. Missing description (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]💡📝Joe Joyce wrote on Mon, May 17, 2021 04:23 AM UTC:HG, I initially thought the Shooters were too strong. Dropping the Shooters' queen analog to a DWAF should do much to reduce the Shooters' total value.
Question: Are you giving the Shooters' pawns an initial double step? If so, try taking that away for the Shooters and see what that does. That alone might cause a big reduction in Shooter overall value.
Fwiw, the symbology of the pieces 'describes' how they move, and it's at least internally consistent.
Great Shatranj. Great Shatranj. (10x8, Cells: 80) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]💡📝Joe Joyce wrote on Mon, May 10, 2021 03:25 PM UTC:HG, Christine, Greg, Fergus, I can't thank you enough. You all have made me and a lot of other people look good. It's a privilege to be associated with you.
I'm seeing the sort of activity this site needs. There are new people playing, and there is new software for playing that even dinosaurs like me can not only appreciate but use. This site needs both. There are a lot of people making variants online. One place is the ChessCraft Discord, where Stuart, the programmer, has created a very active design space for people who like creating chess variants. I found the site by accident, searching for shatranj variants. A member there credited a shatranj design of mine for inspiration, so I joined that discord to see what was there. It's an active site, and there have to be others around. If anyone knows about any such sites, I'd like to hear about them, although they should get their own comment thread, maybe just "Other Chess Variant SItes". It might be worthwhile to poll our members about other sites, and if not partner with some, at least we should share each others information.
Great Shatranj 
. Shatranj style game on 10x8 board.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Joe Joyce wrote on Thu, Apr 22, 2021 04:39 AM UTC:Thank you, Christine, for all the work you've done on these games.
Lemurian Shatranj. 8x8 variant that features short-range pieces. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]💡📝Joe Joyce wrote on Mon, Apr 12, 2021 07:17 PM UTC in reply to Greg Strong from 06:42 PM:Thank you, Greg!
💡📝Joe Joyce wrote on Mon, Apr 12, 2021 06:16 PM UTC in reply to Greg Strong from 04:55 PM:Greg Strong wrote on 2021-04-12 EDT
A promoted colorbound piece may not be placed on the same color as the promoting player's remaining piece of that specific type.
Can we please remove this rule? It needlessly complicates the game needlessly IMO. (Similar to recent discussion on Great Shatranj.)
No problem. While I was looking over the rules yesterday, I saw that and considered removing it, but got called away from the keyboard and never did it.
💡📝Joe Joyce wrote on Mon, Apr 12, 2021 05:51 PM UTC in reply to Bn Em from 11:12 AM:"Are those now the ‘default’ versions of the Hero and Shaman then?" - Bn Em
Actually, the bent versions were the original design for those 2 pieces. They are made as literally half of the pieces I put in Atlantean Barroom Shatranj, but are about three quarters as effective. At that point I hadn't realized the knight was unnecessary in Lemurian because the hero did the knight's job. I'd put the heroes in the rook's positions and still had the knights in their positions, but they were too weak, and I was kinda stuck. Then the Muse granted me an inspiration.
I am more wargamer than chess enthusiast, and old enough to have been there at the beginning of the wargaming hobby. One thing those early games did was compare themselves to chess, and that idea of military chess stuck in my head for decades before I took a side track by considering the limited or linear (good naming choice!) hero and shaman, and Chieftain shatranj popped into my head. Since I still hadn't gotten Lemurian right, I wrote up and posted Chieftain Chess (it sounds better than Chieftain Shatranj) before Lemurian, thus making the linear versions of hero and shaman appear to have been designed first.
So, yes, courtesy of better naming and actual precedence, the "bent" versions are the default, and the linear versions are the "derived" pieces.
💡📝Joe Joyce wrote on Mon, Apr 12, 2021 02:21 AM UTC in reply to Greg Strong from 12:44 AM:Hi, Greg. No, I just noticed the piece descriptions for them were missing from the rules page. Then I got 404 errors while trying to see the alfaerie expansion sets 3, 4, and 5. So I grabbed a copy from Opulent Lemurian Shatranj (one of the very best chess variants "period!") Back when the 3 of us were kicking around ideas, David commented that the name "bent hero" might convey a little more than intended. He obviously "softened the name" by putting the "bent" part in parentheses after the piece name. And the move is still either or both of a step and a leap. The hero and shaman are powerful enough already. The necessity of taking 2 steps to go 3 squares is about the only real limitation on the pieces' ability to attack almost half the squares within 3 squares.
The ShortRange Project. Missing description[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating] Great Shatranj. Great Shatranj. (10x8, Cells: 80) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]💡📝Joe Joyce wrote on Tue, Feb 23, 2021 07:53 PM UTC:Hey, Christine. The original piece set had the "+" on the wazir, but not the "x" on the high priestess. You did the H.P. icon with the "x", and I believe I at one time substituted that into the piece set, but if so, it fell out again. I have no idea whatsoever how the wazir lost its "+". All I can figure is someone went into the GtS piece set and changed that piece. I did not!
💡📝Joe Joyce wrote on Sun, Feb 21, 2021 07:20 AM UTC in reply to Kevin Pacey from Fri Feb 19 09:24 PM:Actually I like all the suggestions: my pita original one, only generals, only pashas, any lost piece + generals. The vote is split with a plurality to any lost pieces plus unlimited generals. (And what if the first general could be a pasha and each subsequent general a mann?)
So I guess we go with any lost piece + "unlimited" generals. But I wouldn't mind if anyone managed to add one or more of the others as options, despite knowing simplicity is the best rule (in most cases.)
Joe Joyce wrote on Sun, Feb 21, 2021 07:03 AM UTC in reply to Jean-Louis Cazaux from Sat Feb 20 07:30 AM:Good grief! I walked right into that, didn't I! Thanks for the information. The short video was informative.
Joe Joyce wrote on Sat, Feb 20, 2021 01:11 AM UTC in reply to Jean-Louis Cazaux from Fri Feb 19 09:36 PM:I was shoveling snow this morning. Got something to eat an hour before start, and fell asleep on the couch from about 12:30 until a little after 14:00, neatly missing it myself. Maybe the 3 hours of sleep last night can take the blame. :)
Thanks for posting. Maybe it'll show up on youtube or some obscure website. But it was about western chess only. Looking at the Silk routes and the various forms of chess found along them gives bits and pieces of a few stories. The eastern chesses are fascinating in their similarities and differences. And the biggest mystery is the disjunction between western chesses and eastern chesses. The eastern chesses are obviously a family, and western chess is just as obviously a closely related but different family. I just want to know when, where, and how the original idea split into 2 related families. And how, of course, Japanese chess arose.
Great Shatranj. Great Shatranj. (10x8, Cells: 80) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]💡📝Joe Joyce wrote on Fri, Feb 19, 2021 09:20 AM UTC:My original idea was to restrict promotions to only 1 piece total of each pair, or to 'generals', non-royal kings. However, I've always considered a game a collaboration between the designer and the players. ... Okay, when a bunch of designers says 'change your promotion rules!' I'm amenable. Grin, anything to get a game played!
If I were to suggest one different rule, I'd say promotion to the pasha (jumping general) might make the original version better. It has the virtue of being a powerful piece not in the original game. However, if you're playing with HG's variant which uses the pasha instead of the man, you might want to expand the possibilities.
Now, what would you all like to see?
Joe Joyce wrote on Thu, Feb 18, 2021 05:27 PM UTC:There is a free seminar online on the origins of chess tomorrow, Friday, February 19th from 1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. eastern standard time (GMT -5)
https://www.facebook.com/events/2791172177802041
https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/opening-moves-the-extraordinary-origins-of-chess-tickets-129749394933
Joe Joyce wrote on Wed, Nov 27, 2019 04:51 PM UTC:https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/11/191126140413.htm
Game Courier. PHP script for playing Chess variants online.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Joe Joyce wrote on Sat, Aug 17, 2019 02:37 AM UTC:This completed game from Game Courier has errored out. Can it be recovered? Thanks, Joe
https://www.chessvariants.com/play/pbm/play.php?game=Janus%20Chess&log=joejoyce-david_64-2008-52-143
Joe Joyce wrote on Tue, Dec 18, 2018 11:31 PM UTC:|
Hi, HG! Thanks for the reply. Grin, I agree Grand Chess et al is a very immodest variant. But then Christian is the Ralph Betza of abstracts. He is the one who makes the distinction between variants of chess and variant chesses. And if FIDE wasn't so firmly enshrined in the psyche of the West, that would be a distinction with very little to no meaning. But as it is, make one little change, you are a heretic, and your audience size goes down at least 5 orders of magnitude. I looked at Elven, and read some of the comments. If you don't mind my saying so, I think it would make a nice partner to Hannibal in a site tournament. It has that power that most here like, and has the kicker of the Chu Shogi Lion, a moderately terrifying piece which is rather unknown here, isn't it? Hmm, if I were to introduce that piece, I'd start by pairing it with my Lemurian hero and shaman, and Greg has a piece (griffin?) that has a similar movement to the hero... heh, one of the problems I have in discussing chess variants is that it gets me thinking of variant designs. Anyway, apparently I can claim Almost Grand as a very modest variant of Grand Chess, and even make a play for Almost Capa. And with that last, I can make the claim I seem to be pretty good at finding the obvious. ;D Merry Christmas, all, and I hope your Chanukah was happy! |
Hannibal Chess. Chess with added Modern Elephants (ferz-alfil compound) on 10x8 board.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Joe Joyce wrote on Tue, Dec 18, 2018 10:31 PM UTC:Thank you, Kevin, and Ben is right, I do occasionally push the boundaries of chess a bit more than most, and also the definitions. To me, Hannibal is about the minimum acceptable change for a game. It adds a simple shortrange piece and changes the board minimally, just enough to fit the colorbound pair. The idea is minimal, the play is excellent. I meant it about this being a decent tourney game. It's straight-up hardnosed chess, no gimmicks.
Joe Joyce wrote on Tue, Dec 18, 2018 08:26 AM UTC:If you read what Christian Freeling has said about Grand Chess, you might buy the argument that Grand Chess is one of the most excellent modest variants. Late night ideas - am writing a reply about Hannibal Chess, and got sidetracked to a slight variant of Grand Chess which I will have to exorcise before I can go to sleep. (Sorry, Kevin, I'll finish your reply tomorrow. ;) In considering what Christian thinks about his design, I came back once again to the idea that the piece set is not complete until you use the 3 king + rook/bishop/knight pieces also. So Almost Grand replaces the queen with the centaur (N+K), the archbishop with the dragon bishop (B+K), and the chancellor with the dragon rook (R+K), and all else is as Grand. This army is a little weaker than Freeling's, mostly from losing the ability to leap over adjacent pieces. Clearly it works for all the Carrera-Capa variants, and might actually help those games a little by toning down the power of the queen equivalents plus losing the archbishop's ability to checkmate without the aid of any other piece. I admit that after playing Grand Chess, playing Carrera-Capa made me feel claustrophobic!
Now this is such an obvious idea someone must have done it before. Can anyone point me to such a game?
Hannibal Chess. Chess with added Modern Elephants (ferz-alfil compound) on 10x8 board.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Joe Joyce wrote on Wed, Dec 12, 2018 09:16 PM UTC:Good ★★★★This is a very nice-playing modest variant. I've greatly enjoyed my games of it. I can absolutely recommend this game as an excellent variant tournament choice. It gets a lot of mileage out of a pair of fairly simple changes. The initial set-up is excellent; it gives good play. The weak piece is a very nice choice, and provides a nice companion/foil for the bishop and knight.
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.
Actually, I agree with the idea that one page more or less per person makes a noticeable difference. I meant literally 1 page, kept for the specific comments and discussion, done by the few people who do wind up with a separate revised version. And it's kept for the discussion.
It's a personal thing with me. I hate seeing information lost. I argued with everyone from John Smith to Derek Nalls about deleting games. I lost both those particular arguments, and lament it. Both had interesting stuff that they later decided didn't live up to their standards.
But I admit to being surprised at how many game courier settings files I have. Some of them can go, being early attempts at something I did better or gave up on. Some are non-chess prototype designs used for playtests of other people's games. Game Courier can handle a lot of abstracts besides chess variants. Should they go, too?