Check out Glinski's Hexagonal Chess, our featured variant for May, 2024.


[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ]
[ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ]
[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]

Single Comment

[Subject Thread] [Add Response]
Joe Joyce wrote on Sun, May 10, 2009 01:20 PM UTC:
There have been several discussions on whether a particular game, or
particular style of game, is easy or hard to write a decent game-playing
program for. There have also been several challenges to design a game
computers would have difficulty playing. Ideally, people would have an easy
time playing this game. 

Might as well throw my hat into the ring, even though I don't know
anything about computers or programming. I suspect the Chieftain series of
games would get progressively more difficult for programmers as the games
get larger. And, if not now, certainly at a later stage of development, I
think the chesimals games would be rather difficult to program. These are
large, multi-move games, where the exact sequence of piece moves in each
turn makes a difference, and all moving pieces must start their move within
a certain small number of squares from one of the multiple king pieces in
the game [a 'command control' rule, as in wargames]. These are the key
features of the games. 

http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSchieftainchess
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSchesimals:auto

If the preceding is not enough, I have been looking at a hierarchy of
leaders for chieftain variants; and at 'open chesimals', multi-unit
'pieces' that may maintain a separation of 1 square between any 2 units
of the 'piece'. 

Do these design features make for a difficult-to-program game?