Single Comment

In the comments on 'The Scout' [M. Winthers], there were a couple of
statements that I wanted to examine further. They are: 
M. Howe: 'Leaping-riders can be awkward and unbalancing because of their
ability to attack through pawn walls, but this is a good
solution.'[referring to the M. Winther Scout]
M. Winther: 'If anybody wants to study the characteristics of a certain
type of new piece, how it affects the strategical situation, and what new
tactical themes are introduced, then my conservative implementations are
ideal.'
Let me mention a pair of [what I consider excellent ;-) ] leaping riders
in the game Grand Shatranj, the Oliphant [moves diagonally] and the
Lightningwarmachine [moves orthogonally]. They are each 2-step linear
riders, sliding 1 square or leaping 2 squares then doing either again at
the player's option. So each may move 1, 2, 3, or 4 squares, leaping over
up to 2 pieces - if those 2 pieces are [or can be] lined up exactly right.
While a mere pawn wall cannot keep them out, their [short] range allows a
'lion defense' - post a piece or two inside the wall [back far enough]
and kill them when they land. Of course, their agility requires a really
solid defense, but it can be done, with the right piece mix. This game was
fairly well received; people seemed to like it, and it's gotten some play.
All the pieces were designed to leap, with the exception of the king and
the pawns. The rook analogues and bishop analogues were specifically
designed to crash pawn walls or any barrier. They are very dangerous
pieces, but, after a bit of playing, ways to handle them were devised, and
a pawn wall may work after all, it just has to be part of a defense in
depth, a new requirement. Chess, changed a bit. More strategic, if my
correspondents are right. And this game introduced both new 4-square rider
pieces along with 3 more different 2-square leapers that I thought were new
when I posted the game [2 of which I believe are still new, as no one has
shown precedence, though I consider them fairly obvious, and posted them
in this and a companion game at the same time]. But the game works well
because all the pieces [except N and K] are new [or close to it] and
rather different. 
I guess my point here is that sometimes you have to make a leap of faith
to get a good game. My questions, asked in all seriousness and humbleness,
because both of you are obviously talented designers and I want to explore
the avenues this game opens up, are: Is this game [Grand Shatranj]
actually as good as I claim? Can it be, if it's as radical as some might
think? Does it 'break the rules' in some sense and get away with it or
not? If it does, how does it manage it? Anyone who hasn't gone away by
this point, please feel free to join in. someone could ask: 'If it's
such a good game, how come it isn't wildly popular?' Mats would probably
say, I suspect, that it's not conservative enough. Is he right?