Thanks, Greg!

Yes!  This should do it:

FindRule( Move50Rule ).TypesThatResetCounter.Add( Massai );
FindRule( Move50Rule ).SetRequiredDirection( Direction( 0, 1 ) );

The need for only resetting the counter when moving forward was added long ago for Chess and a Half.  I don't remember ever needing the TypesThatResetCounter list before ...  Maybe it was added for something or maybe I was just anticipating.

@Aurelian, I have no idea. This rule has always been sort of academic for me, I have never played a game of any kind when it has been necessary to use this rule. So, you can change to 75 if you feel is better.

@Jean-Louis,

What are your thoughts on the interaction of the 50 moves rule with the maasai pawns in this game?

@Greg,

Hello,

Can chessV2 update the counter in the 50 moves rule also when the maasai pawns are moved. What about only when maasai pawns are moved forward? The later rule seems more sensitive to me, for my game.

Anyway, the classic of this genre is still smess, if anyone asks me!

Nobody seems to do that.

Once in the game warrior can take (capture) 2 spaces forward (if first is empty).

Does this mean once for each warrior, or that each player may only make one such warrior capture in the game?

It means that the diagram designer should receive a lot of customization to achieve an avatar chess diagram. On the other hand, HG is very good he could conjure a badzone function that does it. Anyway, the classic of this genre is still smess, if anyone asks me!

@ Aurelian: Possible, indeed. It may be that Avatar Chess is not similar to the usual variants. But what does that tell us?

@Greg, I do not think he can, in a timely manner. Avatar chess is totally different than the usual bunch!

@ H.G.

It is impressive how you quickly make variants playable. Hard to believe! Could you give 'Avatar Chess' a chance?

I will need to do this game in C#. Because of the piece shuffle it cannot be done in an include file. But, in general, you would set the en passant givers and receivers in an include file like this:

FindRule( EnPassantRule ).AttackerTypes = { Pawn, Maasai };
FindRule( EnPassantRule ).VictimTypes = { Pawn, Maasai, Prince };

So then, how should I write the part where the maasai and regular pawns are listed as givers and receivers of the en passant rule?

Is it possible to get the graphics in their original form?

Actually, please disregard.  I found the original SVGs in the PyChess source code.

We have had an email discussion about berolinas and regular pawns. This is what I remember. I'm glad it worked out.

This is supported. The en passant rule in configurable with a list of attacker types and a list of victim types. I probably added this for Metamachy (although it only needed a new victim type - this game will use both.)

The only programming that needs to be done for this game is the logic for placing the pieces. I will work on getting it included for the next release.

@Greg,

I remember having a discussion a while ago about how en passamnt would work with multiple types of pawns. This game needs something like that is chessV2 would be able to play it. I want to work something similar at a future game. Any thoughts about it?

@Daniel: on the GC page for Skica, there is no link to send to this Skica page here. The word "Skica" under the diagram is not active a as link.

Also this GC page has (in its bottom) a link to a Skical preset, but this link goes to 404 Error.

I have a game on-going. My opponent had misunderstood the moves of the Ski-pieces. He thought that these pieces must hop a piece in the first square to move, which could be a wrong interpretation of "but always hops over the first square". He had not realised that they may cross an empty first square. Maybe you could be more specific in the text.

I like this game.

No, I think we have said everything. Initially I just posted an idea with a very open mindset, as a game to see more proposals, because I found Daniel's ideas excellent. Instead all I got were answers a bit rude, at least this how I received them, and you came last, sorry. Not a single positive comment, I guess my idea was really bad. Many people here are programmers or skilled in computer science, which is excellent. Hence, those discussions based on rhetorics with comparisons, extrapolations, generalisations, to prove by A+B that someone is right and the someone else is wrong. But I'm not a computer and I know that I'm not always consistent or logical (actually nobody is). And probably over sensitive sometimes as I don't master this language with enough subtilities. Let's close this here now, there is no problem.

Hopefully one has still the right to have a different opinion

Of course.  What you say is your opinion, and what I said is my opinion.  Did I tell you what you can or can't say?  No.  It is just a discussion.  So your response is surprising to me.

It is the first time I hear that there is a minimum of games required. Counter-examples are many. In fact most of fairy pieces have been named by problemists on their very first use.

This response is also very odd.  Maybe we are talking about different things.  If you want to use these pieces in your game, name them whatever you want.  It seems to me you are saying that they should have universal names.  That is something very different.  And yes, you can have whatever opinion you want about that also, but do not be surprised when people disagree with you.  On multiple occasions, you have become very opinionated about how other people have chosen to name pieces in their games.

I do think they are worth of special attention, again is my opinion. I respect yours, respect mine.

Yes, I do.  I thought we all were having a discussion here.  Apparently, in your mind, something else is going on. Did I say someting intolerant or disrespectful?

Hopefully one has still the right to have a different opinion. It is the first time I hear that there is a minimum of games required. Counter-examples are many. In fact most of fairy pieces have been named by problemists on their very first use.

I don't think either that naming 3 pieces is an attempt to name the infinite number of possible chess variant pieces. Your comparison is an exaggeration.

I do think they are worth of special attention, again is my opinion. I respect yours, respect mine.

I am not in favor of attempting any "standard" names for ski pieces unless they prove themselves to be popular. Right now, how many games have any of these pieces? Two? So I think a prefix is far more appropriate than trying to find new "standard" names for three new pieces. There are an almost infinite number of possible chess variant pieces, most of which are not worth using in most games. If you attempt to name them all, you end up with Man & Beast. Why are these pieces worth of special attention? They have not proven themselves with any popularity whatsoever.

@ J-L: Re: the Internet-speak (English abbreviations):

iirc = if I recall correctly;

Fwiw = For what it's worth.

Thanks @Daniel for the links.

I fully feel like you: It's quickly hard for me to read those Man & Beast pages, too dense, broken diagrams (which I don't find diverting).

I also think the jumping ability of the 3 ski-pieces makes a big difference. Skica looks to me as a very good game to test them.

This is why I'm convinced that they deserve to have a name of their own and not being simply prefixed avatars. Nor named with the volapukian manner found in the Man & Beast pages.

Fwiw?

iirc?

At least for the Knight case I'd tend towards yes, with a qualifier for Leaping and (the small variety of) non‐leaping versions (a mao might be Chinese‐style, or orthogonal‐first, for ex.; the moa diagonal‐first, and their compound the ‘moo’ two‐path (or perhaps, following Gilman, Flexi‐path?)). Again, both elephants/dabbabas and Chinese/Korean Cannons (the latter of which arguably differ yet more fundamentally) are usually referred to this way, and the only naturally‐occurring mao is cognate to the leaping knight

As for the leaping Rook (iirc it exists in Ramayana Chess as the Buddha)… quite possibly too; it's renamed in that game most obviously because all the names are themed, and since none of the pieces are blockable it's as easily just a rule difference as a fundamentally distinct piece. At least Gilman took the same attitude for Dabbabantes and their ilk

The main exception for me is if the two are present in the same game, in which case different atomic names start to make sense (indeed even for pieces that move identically but have different behaviours outside that, e.g. promotion or royalty); and indeed while they might feel quite different to play with, it'd seem odd imo to have an array with both leaping and non‐leaping ski‐bishops, or early‐ and late‐turning manticores. Ultimately it's probably really a matter of not arbitrarily proliferating unrelated names for uncommon pieces with more (imo) similarities than differences

And yeah, M&B took me several reads before I got to the point of more‐or‐less understanding (especially since there's plenty of stuff in there that's more interesting than the reams of names), and the broken diagrams are at best distracting

That link is not in the Skica page and is not in the Alphabetical Index.

I've added a link to the preset in the Notes section. There's already a submission to include it in the index, which hasn't been accepted yet.

Fwiw, I tend to agree with Gilman's conflation of jumping ski‐bishop with Tamerlane's non‐jumping Talia/Vanguard/Scout/Picket (he selects the latter term), on the grounds that they reach the same squares, like leaping and non‐leaping elephants

In that case, would you also want to use the same term for Knight, Mao, and Moa? What about 'Rook' for a piece that leaps to any square on the same rank or file? I think the jumping ability makes a big difference in how the piece feels to play with. I wish I could understand more of those Man and Beast articles. They quickly get hard to follow due to the dense paragraphs and broken diagrams.

Ski‐ is a nice prefix for general use (though compared to Grant Acedrex's Ski‑manticore, the Tiger Chess astrologer is perhaps less obvious as a ski‐ piece since it arguably jumps over two squares — in the same way the osprey is arguably a ski‑‘2.manticore’, to use Aurelian's term for lack of anything better), but it does make sense imo to have separate words for the simplest ski‐ pieces; Bicycle/‐reme/‐plane are nice enough in that they extrapolate easily for longer initial leaps (tricycle, pentareme, ⁊c., practical utility aside).

Fwiw, I tend to agree with Gilman's conflation of jumping ski‐bishop with Tamerlane's non‐jumping Talia/Vanguard/Scout/Picket (he selects the latter term), on the grounds that they reach the same squares, like leaping and non‐leaping elephants; the leaping is then distinguished by a prefixed word (that said, I would tend to similiarly conflate normal and contra‐gryphons and Renn cavaliers for the same reason, so I suppose that can be taken with a pinch of salt given general tastes here). Fwiw he also has an ‘‐on’ suffix for extending a radial leap into a subsequent slide (such that ski‐bishop/picket ≡ ‘elephon’, ‘trilbon’ ≡ notional ‘tri‐plane’, and things like Sowons (per Long‐Nosed Generals) are possible) — though he doesn't touch oblique‐starting pieces.

As regards atomic names, his ski‐queen ≡ Fagin avoids clashing initials, albeit being a bit of a specific reference; Picket and Pocket (≡ ski‐bishop/‐rook) have no such luck, though Picket is always substitutable as above (and both T and V are relatively uncommon initials for CV pieces) (and also, Bat does in fact have a prior usage, as does Quetzal)

Thanks. That link is not in the Skica page and is not in the Alphabetical Index. (And in the Alphabetical Index there is no shortcut for Sk).

Have you made a GC to play this game?

Yes, here it is.

Have you made a GC to play this game?

The idea behind 'bi' is that the piece jumps to the 2nd square before sliding. I still like 'ski' for describing such pieces because it's more general. You could describe the Tiger Chess astrologer as a ski-osprey, for example.

For represeting these pieces, I've been thinking of something like this gryphon.

The central X could be replaced with a small dabbabah/alfil/knight/whatever to indicate the first stage of the move, while the rooks or bishops in the corners show the second stage. That might not work so well for the ski-queen though.

Well, it is always a dilemma whether the piece icons should hint at their name or hint at their move. For playing a variant there is really no need for knowing the names of the pieces at all. You must associate images with moves. So this is why I prefer the second method. Especially since names in chess variants are not standardized at all, and pieces of the same name can have totally different moves in other variants. So no matter what the name of the piece was, if it moves similar to a Bishop, I would represent by an image that looks like a Bishop. Even when it was called a Bicycle or a Bat. E.g. the diagram in the Elven Chess article uses the images for Crowned Bishop, Crowned Rook and Lion for the Elf, Goblin and Warlock. The diagrams for Sac Chess in your book do the same for Missionary and Sailor.

Bicyle, Bireme, Biplane: Daniel, the use of "bi" as a kind of prefix is bizarre for me in this context. "Bi" evokes the notion of twice or double, which is not present. I even prefer "ski" because it may me think of skipping. Anyway, having the 3 starting with the same letter if not the best imo.

"This makes an easy mnemonics for the names, but is a bit catastrophic for the move notation and other places where a piece has to be identified by a single-letter ID. "

Isn't "catastrophic" a bit negative comment here? Lets's be constructive among us. There are only 26 letters in our alphabet, we have to deal with this kind of issue always. If you use Ski-Rook, Ski-Queen, Ski-Bishop, the 3 of them start with S which is not better anyway.

"And I wonder how much the mnemonic is worth; these are only helpful if you already know the names, but are not sure which name belongs to which piece. "

I don't understand what you mean. Imagine I discover Skica. I know it has the 3 new pieces. OK, this one is the Bat, this I can see because the icon of the Bat will not look like anything else. Bat -> it is a kind of lame Bishop, not a lame Rook or Queen. I don't see what is not clear here.

"But most people would not even be aware that pieces of this type exist at all."

Most people know nothing about the fauna of CV anyway. If they come here, I guess they are ready to know that we play with fairy pieces. I probably miss the point.

I try to propose something. These 3 pieces are somehow flying, at least I see them like this. And I agree with HG, they belong to the special category of compound pieces doing this-then-that. I propose 3 names, not used in other CV (with a small note on one of them), and which start with an initial letter reminding of their parent in the pure riders' world.

Quetzal for (A?B)(D?R)

Raven for (D?R), with another semantic link with the bird rook

Bat for (A?B)

The 3 are fling, different enough to be drawn as recognisable icons easily.

They fit with a family where are already Osprey, Ostrich or Condor, Pegasus, Eagle or Gryphon. (The use of Raven has been reported for RNN but the RNN is better known as Waran or Varan, which put the syllabes in the other order.)

That could be my proposal.

I agree these pieces are very interesting. I prefer them to some "bent-hopper-riders" like the Osprey, Ostrich, etc. In my opinion they should deserve better names than Ski-something. (Skiing is not obviously connected to the idea of hopping for me, sorry, I'm a very good skier!) Maybe we should open a competition for the best proposal. Who's want to start?

They do hop

They hop over the first square

Fergus, you might want to update your hyperlinks, especially the link to the GC preset page for this game. Right now, it is not working because the page was moved.

I'm interested in this game. I never got very familiar with the previous version so I'm wondering, what exactly is different here, and why? Also, is the game courier preset up-to-date?

Suzumu Shogi is ready

M because of caMel, like we have N because of kNight. In his upcoming book Jean-Louis indeed uses M and G for Camel and Eagle, in all his variants.

In variants as large as Terachess or Chu Shogi having 1-letter piece ID becomes a real challenge. For Tenjiku Shogi it becomes impossible. WinBoard uses 'dressed letters', like P' or P". Unlike 2-letter IDs this can also be used in FEN.

How should the pieces in this game be annotated? Eagle and Elephant both begin with 'E' and Camel and Cannon both begin with 'C'. The Game Courier preset has the eagle as 'G' (since it is usually called a Gryphon) and the camel as 'M' (don't know why). Is this what you would like for the "official" notations?

Thanks Greg.

While I find abstract diagrams sometimes not the easiest on the eyes, Fergus requested I use such for the Sac Chess Rules page (it was my first submission). H.G. thought the Alfarie figurines were more easily recognizable, too, but Fergus stated he himself was biased (having created the abstract figurines himself, I suppose).

For what it's worth, I prefer using the abstract pieces when playing Gross Chess, as I find the Champion piece type more recognizable when as an abstract figurine than as the helmeted figurine of a Champion in Alfarie. Maybe a similar story for the Vaos and Cannons, too.

I understand the logic of the diagram with abstract pieces, but for me it requests a supplementary mental effort to figure out which one is what. IMO it works fine with the 6 standard pieces, but in this case with all combinations it is an extreme, and not really needed, difficulty. I believe that adding a conventional diagram would help the recognition of this game. I have one ready that I can post or send.

I have updated the diagrams. In the abstract-all piece set, the code for the chancellor is 'RN' not 'MA'. Perhaps it was changed at some point, but that's not something that should happen, as it would break things.

The ZoG file doesn't seem to work, giving error 'The following bitmap couldn't be loaded: "images\boards\rwb10x10bmp" '

If you could advise on a fix, I'd love to play this

I would like to see similar discussions around 'AC'.

I guess the diagrams are generated 'on the fly'. So probably the image file for the chancellor was renamed.

And now that you are here: I have been commenting a Sac Chess game for Jean-Louis' new book, and I noticed that after castling the King is really still very unsafe. Because it is still directly behind the Pawn shield. So castling really seems a bad idea. It seems much better to quickly move out an Amazon to f3/f8 or e2/e9, and then hide the King away on g1/g10. The Rook is then not trapped, and can get out once the minors are developed, and the Sailor can be moved to i2/i9 to protect the Pawn Shield. The Judge, Archbishop and Chancelor can then get out over h1/h10, g2/g9 and h2/h2, respectively.Leaving the King behind an enormous 'wall of power'.

Does that make sense?

Hi H.G.:

I didn't change anything for the longest time in the diagrams on the Sac Chess rules page. I assumed the chancellors disappearing might have resulted from something Fergus (or someone else) changed on CVP website, Game Courier or the Diagram Designer. Right now I haven't tried to edit a rules page myself for so long (if that's what needs to be done) that I'm afraid I might make things worse.

The Chancellors ar missing in the diagrams.

Squirrel Chess must get some examinations. I'm playing a game on Game Courier. According to the Game Courier page, where the rules are not enforced, the board is 8x8 and the Guard plays as a Man, a non-royal King. The link "Squirrel chess" on that Game Courier page of Squirrel Chess sends to a page of "The rule of chess".

Now, I have also found this page on which I am now, "Squirrel Chess". Here the board is 10x10 and the Guard is like at Hiashatar, a piece moving like a King but also deflecting attacking pieces.

So they are 2 different games! Same name and same author.

Can the inventor clarify these and/or the editors be aware of this situation which is confusing?

Thank you