Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

I cannot call this game “bad”, but I agree with the British chess master William Winter that the standard Marshall-Chancellor and Cardinal-Archbishop pieces added to Chess obviate the Knights and Bishops to a great extent when combined with the Queen already existing. The Amazon arguably also obviates the Rook in addition to people being skeptical of adding it to Chess without adjusting the rules so it doesn’t overpower the game. Have you tried playing with Fusion Chess or Assimilation Chess rules with Men?

What do you think of this set of pieces to play Sac Chess (and Heavy Chess)?

Set of compound pieces for 3D printer: (from left to right) Centaur-Judge / Missionary / Marshall-Chancellor / Admiral-Sailor / Amazon / Cardinal-Archbishop

Cool! Thanks Fergus.

Here's a photo I took of a setup for Sac Chess. The board and Chess pieces are from Omega Chess. The squares are 1.75 inches. I covered up the edges to hide the corner spaces and coordinates that don't match Sac Chess, since within the 10x10 area, the Omega Chess board had a dark square in each player's right corner. The Amazons, Chancellors, and Archbishops are from the Musketeer Chess piece kits for those pieces. The Sailor (Dragon King), Missionary (Dragon Horse), and Judge (Centaur) are represented by the Rook, Bishop, and Knight from Peter Ganine's Superba set. These pieces have human faces, which seemed appropriate for pieces that can move one space in any direction like a man.

I've moved a couple of the last comments to a new thread: Setup graphics, piece sets

I like the abstract pieces a lot and I use them when playing Gross Chess. But the farther you go from the standard types, the less well I think it works. In this game, you have Dragon King, Dragon Horse, and Amazon, and I don't think the abstract pieces are particularly effective.

I am disappointed to hear that Fergus requested you to use his graphics. I think it's fair to say that, while they may be good, they are decidedly non-standard. I do not think it helps our cause, (encouraging Chess enthusiasts to explore Chess variants), to make things appear more alien. Personally, I consider the standard for this site to be the Alfaerie graphics. Each contributor can, of course, choose whatever they like to represent their game.

What I think would be nice is to have buttons over the graphic which switch all page graphics between the options. I think H.G. has done this on some of his pages, but I don't know how it works. If it is not hard to do, I may start updating pages. OTOH, an argument can be made that the main diagram should be one of his interactive diagrams. Personally, I prefer to put the interactive diagram down in the "Computer Play" section, as I have done here,  But that may be because of my own biases.  The way I have the "Setup" section on that page is how I like to do it, largely because that's how it has been done here for a very long time (although I added the Initial Setup FEN.)

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.

I'd hoped that castling would often come in handy, but there have been a couple of games, so far, where my opponents have dropped their K back a rank against me (likely after an Amazon move to third or second rank - one possible drawback might be if said Amazon ever has to retreat somewhere with loss of time). Castling kingside followed by shifting my K sideways one more square is something I often do, though maybe out of habit from chess (somewhat unrelated, Play Tester recently championed the idea of quickly charging the pawn in front of his Sailor on the kingside, even before either side may have castled).

The more space you have control of on a side of the board, the safer it is to castle there, I suppose. If Black plays a French Defence analogue, for example, then kingside castling seems nice enough for White. Not only that, but if a centre file is about to get opened early, castling may be a good idea. Sac Chess is still relatively unexplored, of course. I thought I'd sensed some unexpected defects to its design (compared to chess, at least) since inventing it, but at least it's being played more often again lately (though I'm always one of the players). Bishop(s) (and later Missionaries) flying out to the edge of the board, especially of the queenside, for example (the Sailor pawn charge may be another).

I'd also hoped when designing the game that the Judges (Centaurs) on the wings would help to guard a castled K for a long time. Castling queenside seems like it's usually quite unsafe, even compared to chess. The K is still likely unsafe in the middle for a couple of moves at the least. I'd secretly hoped to be the first one to castle queenside in a Sac Chess Game Courier game, but Fergus beat me to it when playing someone else. It's also easier to discourage or prevent castling queenside in the first place than in chess, it seems.

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.

probably lag or glitch

Strange... my post just now was immediately posted twice. I'd note that I'm not sure if I was properly logged in at the time.

I had considered the Q as a basic (FIDE) piece, and so I knighted it twice to produce the two Amazons (crowning a Q, in addition, not being 'possible'), as I had similarly knighted and/or crowned the R,N, and B twice (then there was also the angle of the Q starting out as the sole wife of the K in FIDE Chess). At least that's how I chose to carry out the theme for Sac Chess that I picked.

I neglected to mention that for a final setup I didn't wish to have more than one R-like piece on any file, as I disliked doubled R-like pieces being on a file that may be opened, possibly resulting in two very quick trades, or else heavy pressure perhaps being thus quickly created on a semi-open file. Next, I didn't want the Amazons in corners, nor the Chancellors preventing the analogues to Fool's and Scholar's Mate. Having decided on all that, and where to put the Centaurs (which I'd called Judges without being aware of the more conventional name - they are useful to protect a castled K where I put them, anyway, I think, and not deep hitting like Archbishops), I wasn't left with much choice where to put the Archbishops and the Missionaries. I preferred to have the Archbishops not on central files in case an enemy rook could suddenly wipe one out (Missionaries being slightly less valuable than Rs on 10x10 in my estimation), and in my final setup the Archbishops each ultimately point at an enemy Judge, which I estimate as weaker than an A on 10x10.

Anyone is welcome to try to improve on the setup of Sac Chess with a CV of their own. At least Sac Chess has had over 50 games of playtesting on Game Courier now, and the range of playable openings doesn't seem too small (nothing like FIDE chess in the early stages of a game, but I think it's tough for most if not all CVs to outdo that game in that way).

Sure, I was asking to know if what I was thinking had been considered. I have no doubt that this game is popular and I understand that it is not that every dude can alter your game.

I'm probably a bit stuck on the logic, because Sac chess is based on a very logical approach. If B, R and N are considered the basic ingredients, then having 2Q, 2BN, 2RN, 2KB, 2KR, 2KN and a single BRN=A is making it full.

The lineup with BN/Q/A/BN at the center of the back row is keeping the FIDE array in the 2nd row.

I will test a game like this, as a variant strongly inspired by yours.

To Be Honest, I prefer a setup where the King Queen pair is switched with the Missionaries and the Queen is now the Amazon and vice versa

yeah it may break the Original FIDE setup but it allows the weaker pieces to develop faster without the stronger ones joining in as well which I prefer and for Castling, I would just allow the King castle with the Sailor

but that's just my preference, you do you, the current setup is good enough for me to play on and not ruin the variant for me

I did have a discussion in this thread a few years back, with another gentleman, on the topic of having two Qs and only one Amazon, rather than the other way around.

My original theme in inventing the game was to crown or knight two of every piece in the FIDE army per side (aside from pawns and K), and so two Amazons happened to result - plus I faithfully kept the FIDE array as much as I could, on the second row.

One advantage of not having an Amazon on the second row, in a usual mirror symmetric setup, is that there is no possibility both sides will develop their sole Amazon opposite each other's, when an immediate trade of said ladies might happen. I also did not want to have Chancellors on the second row for the same reason. Perhaps I worried too much about eager trading, when trying to chase such a big piece with little ones might be possible, but I was a very inexperienced inventor then and gave that little weight.

There is 14x8 Alekhine Chess, invented by another person, which happens to have 2 Queens and 1 Amazon, though I don't like the game because arranging castling is too hard for one thing, and when I first saw the game I happened to also think that a Queen is the traditional sole wife of a K, at least at the start of FIDE Chess. However, I did remain haunted by having a sole Q in Sac Chess, when it's inferior in all ways to an Amazon. That was until I noticed the odd game like Courier chess, where a clearly weaker ferz is the K's wife apparently, while a (sole) guard is stronger in every way, but apparently not the wife. Courier Chess is quaint that way, and so I comforted myself with the idea that Sac Chess could also be considered similarly quaint.

Sac Chess has been played for a few years now on this website, and has proven fairly popular on Game Courier (in the top 30 currently out of over 1200), so I'd be more inclined that a seperate CV be invented, by anyone, to experiment with using 2 Queens and a sole Amazon in a Sac Chess-like 10x10 game, rather than my changing Sac Chess at this point. I may have suggested years back that anyone could replace the sole Q with an Amazon, and the two Amazons with two Qs, for each side, if they wished to try playing it. I think I even suggested a name for it (on this site or another), but I forget exactly what it was.

This CV is quite interesting. I like this idea very much. As others, I'm a bit afraid of 2 Amazons per side. I understand the author's reason wishing to keep the standard respective chess lineup.

Then I wonder if it was considered to keep the 2nd row as it is but to modify the back row with Crowned Bishops (Missionaries) on d1,g1; a second Queen on e1 (behind the 1st one); and a single Amazon on f1 (behind the King) ?

Any thought?

8x8 Anglo-American Draughts is actually solved. Probably most complex game that has that title (I BTW still want to create a site like this but focused on abstract strategy in general)

Russia is one of the dominant nations in international draughts. They provide about half of the world champions there. They never won the american checkers world championship.

Personally that's not how I would try to sum up the appearance of that Venn Diagram ('map'), which is a bit confusing - it makes the area covered by International Checkers look only about as big as the area covered by 8x8 checkers, to me. Anyway, I wouldn't under-estimate the size of the British Empire at its height - a lot of nations, spread all over the world. For what it's worth, Russia could be generously thrown in too, if I recall right, as far as 8x8 variants go.

As I said, it is not only a matter of planetwise numbers, but also how they are distributed. From the map in here you can see that American Checkers is really a regional variant, only played in England and its former colonies.

Also, the predicate 'International' is normally only used if there is need to contrast it to a locally more popular variant. We just say 'Chess', and everyone knows what it means. It is mainly Asians that use the term 'International Chess', because when they say 'Chess' in their own language, it would imply a completely different game. Likewise with Draughts. We never say 'Internationaal Dammen' here. We just say 'Dammen', and there never is any confusion as to what is meant. The predicate 'International' is only used in countries where a regional variant is more popular. So the meaning of 'International' can also be 'Not that variant we only play here', i.e. the opposit of 'National'.

Here's a possibly amusing little reddit piece on why the World Series is called what it is:

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAnAmerican/comments/572erb/why_is_it_called_the_world_series_when_you_guys/

I'd also note that at one point there were two Canadian teams in Major League Baseball - there used to be a Montreal Expos National League team, before it folded a few decades ago. Regardless, there were no Canadian teams around whenever it was decided to call the ultimate MLB championship the World Series (for whatever long-forgotten true reason).

Aside from that, I've tried to hunt down the origins of the use of the name 'International Draughts', and have nothing really to show for it so far. Other than that the wiki on the game that I gave earlier traces its first championship back to 1894, and there's no way it was International in the sense H.G. wishes for that word (i.e. played widely, AND the most popular variant of its game [checkers]). However, the wiki doesn't state what the game was actually called back in the 1800's at any point.

What might be interesting is to consider what if 10x10 checkers is played less than 8x8 checkers world-wide even today, BUT the 10x10 game is qualitatively better than 8x8 AND elite checkers players prefer it when competing [which they do internationally, too]. In that case it doesn't matter how many amateurs prefer 8x8 checkers worldwide, still, i.e. leading in popularity arguably may not be of absolute importance to whether the name International Checkers is deserved.

Canadian "team" - singular. And by a loose definition of "compete", since the Toronto Blue Jays aren't particularly good, haven't won the World Series since 1993, and have only made the playoffs twice since then.

Well, Canadian teams compete for the World Series, don't they?

What one considers a player and what not is a bit ill-defined, and different games might use different criteria. But for the case of Xiangqi it isn't really that relevant, because it is so China-centered, and hardly anyone plays it ouside China and Vietnam. So it would never have a claim to the predicate 'International', no many how many players there are on a World scale. Likewise for Shogi; virtually no one playes that outside of Japan. The Dutch Shogi association has some 56 members, only about half of them active.

Orthodox Chess is not concentrated in any single country, or even continent. So the name International Chess is deserved there, even if it would not have the largest number of players on a world scale. As I said, it is not important how popular it is in China alone, that is only one county.

But I am Canadian. :)

For what it's worth, a while back I looked up FIDE's claim for how much chess is played (600 million adults - perhaps an over-estimation by the firm that was hired), while elsewhere I read that just 200 million people play Chinese Chess, which may be a gross under-estimation.

It would be nice to be able to find official, reliable figures somewhere. The estimates for Shogi and Go I also hunted down were only in the low tens of millions for each, which I find a bit hard to swallow, in the case of Go especially.

Actually, I don't know if (10x10) International Checkers is more popular than standard 8x8 checkers at present. The 10x10 variant just kind of got that name somehow.

Not where you live, of course; you are used to your own regional variant on 8x8 (which is really a children's game, one step up from Tic Tac Toe). A Chinaman would say the same thing for International (= orthodox) Chess, compared to Xiangqi. And he would have more cause, because there do seem to be far more Xiangqi players than for International/orthodox Chess.

Draughts in serious competition is 10x10 virtually everywhere.

So I don't think there is any precedent. And even if there is, it would not be a valid excuse to repeat such an outrageously ridiculous misrepresentation. But what can you expect, from a country where a playoff between two local leagues is called the 'World Series'...?

Actually, I don't know if (10x10) International Checkers is more popular than standard 8x8 checkers at present. The 10x10 variant just kind of got that name somehow.

Having 'International Chess' as 10x10 would simply be following with that precedent, besides the thought that 10x10 may indeed be the best board size, as John Brown would have it in the second link I gave before.

Well, as long as it would not be more popular than 8x8 orthodox Chess, any claim to the name 'International Chess' would be outright ridiculous.

That you want to restrict the competition to 10x10 is as arbitrary as only taking chess variants into account that have a Cannon as one of the pieces.

Interesting. The wiki on International Draughts mentions early on that it is synonymous with 'Polish Draughts' or 'International Checkers':

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_draughts

I'd agree that to be called International Chess, such a variant really should be already popular internationally. Yet, I would have it as 10x10 (like for its checkers namesake), so it couldn't be orthodox (8x8) chess.

Otherwise, like for International Checkers, I'd think that besides being 10x10 there should be no pieces added/dropped to the board once the game begins. So, perhaps the first such 10x10 variant that becomes popular enough internationally should grab the title by being re-named 'International Chess' (at least until it begins to have some sort of steep decline, like chess itself might one day).

At the moment the only contender for the moniker (10x10) 'International Chess' I'm aware of might be (10x10) Grand Chess, if only since it has been promoted a lot - but it is not yet near enough popular in most nations. Finally I'd note that I've seen somewhere on this CVP website (on a rules page for a 10x10 CV that uses rotating spearmen) the claim that 'many scholars' agree that if 8x8 chess is to be further developed, it will be by a 10x10 CV:

https://www.chessvariants.com/large.dir/contest/cenchess.html

I thought that 'International Chess' is already used as a synonym for orthodox Chess, to contrast it to variants with a clear regional binding, such as Xiangqi, Shogi, Makruk. (Which are also known as Chinese / Japanese / Thai Chess.) No one outside the tiny community of CV players would ever say 'orthodox Chess'.

And I never heard anyone speak about 'International Checkers'; everyone seems to call that 'International Draughts'. In Dutch we just call that game 'Dammen', no doubt a distorted form of the French name 'Jeu de Dames', and what you know as Checkers we call 'Amerikaans/Engels Dammen'.

The logical requirement for being called 'International' is that it should be significantly popular in a large fraction of all countries, without one country or continent having a much larger fraction of its population play it than any other. If 80% of the people playing it would be distributed (approximately proportionally) over European countries, it would be 'European' rather than 'International'. That doesn't really seem to depend on how large the board is.

So to be called 'International' it would have to be the one item of its kind that has the largest global spread. I suppose you could quantify the concept of global spread by defining it as the fraction of the population that plays it in the country that is half-way down the list that orders countries by this fraction.

Of course 'kind' is only loosely defined, but it refers to what the 'International' predicate is applied to. In 'International Chess' that would be any game that qualifies as Chess. If you want to restrict it to 10x10 variants, you would have to call it 'International 10x10 Chess'.

Thanks for your description of my style, Carlos. I've tried to play in many styles (notably for chess) over the years, but I still find that at lower levels of skill than elite, aggression (if available in the position) often pays off most heavily.

There is a question I've had for some time now. 10x10 checkers (at least one variant of it) has been called 'International Checkers'. When naming Sac Chess, though it uses all the classic compound pieces, I avoided calling it 'International Chess' because Sac Chess was totally unproven as yet (besides that it would have been immodest). I did mention on my Chess Federation of Canada Discussion Board blog though that were Sac Chess ever to take off, I wouldn't mind if it were re-named to that instead.

Anyway, my question would be, has anyone more knowledgeable ever given thought to what characteristics a 10x10 CV should have, were it ever to be thought worthy of being called 'International Chess' (a name I find a bit ambiguous, incidentally, much like 'International Checkers').

Thanks, Kevin, I already read the game. It shows very well the dangers that exist since the opening. Playing carelessly Black enters after just 4 moves into a near-deadly whirlwind. Your style of play is clearly very aggressive trying to do as much damage as possible in the minimum amount of time.

I share 2 games that I played vs the applet imitating its style of play. The first testifies that the AI does make castlings. The second took a long time because I intentionally sought to reach a final of kings and pawns to test pawn's promotion on both sides.

1.Ng4 Jb7 2.Nd4 Ji7 3.c4 Nd7 4.Jc3 Ng7 5.h4 Mc9 6.Jh3 Mh9 7.e4 Jg6 8.f4 Jd6 9.i4 Nf6 10.b4 Md7 11.Mb3 Cc9 12.Mi3 c7 13.Bf3 Ne6 14.Be3 Jde7 15.Nxe6 Jxe6 16.Nxf6 Jexf6 17.d4 Mhg7 18.g4 h6 19.Cd3 Bh8 20.Cg3 O-O 21.O-O Ac8 22.f5 Jgf7 23.e5 J6e7 24.Ac2 Af9 25.f6 Jexf6 26.exf6 Mxf6 27.Cgf5 Mfe6 28.Cxi8+ Ki9 29.Cxg7 Bxg7 30.Mj5 Ch8 31.Jj4 Ad6+ 32.M°g3 Ade7 33.Jd5 Ad7 34.Jxe6 Jxe6 35.Cg6 Bxd4 36.Cxh8+ Bxh8 37.Ji6 Bxb2 38.Jxj8+ Kh8 39.Ai8#

1.Jb4 Jb7 2.Ji4 Ji7 3.Jh4 Ng7 4.Ni4 f6 5.Jc4 Mh9 6.Nb4 Af8 7.f5 Jd6 8.Jxd6 Axd6 9.Af3 Nd7 10.Ad5 Mc9 11.Axd6 Bxd6 12.e4 Jh7 13.Bf4 Cg9 14.Bxd6 Cxd6 15.Ch2 Mf8 16.Cd2 Ne5 17.d4 Nf7 18.Cf4 Mcd7 19.Cxd6 Mxd6 20.Mc2 Cc9 21.Me3 Cd7 22.g4 Ne5 23.Ac2 Cb6 24.dxe5 Cxe3+ 25.Qxe3 Mdf7 26.e6 Me7 27.e5 fxe5 28.Cxe5 Mexe6 29.Bf3 Me7 30.O-O Jf6 31.M°g3 Jxe5 32.M°xe5 Mff7 33.Nc6 Md7 34.Jg6 Mg9 35.Jf6 Mf8 36.Qxj8 b7 37.Nd4 d6 38.M°g3 Mxf6 39.Qg5 Mgf7 40.Qf4 Sg9 41.Ng5 M7d7 42.a5 Qxa5 43.Ra2 Qc5 44.Rxa8 Af8 45.M°b5 Ne6 46.fxe6 Mxf4 47.M°xc5 Mxc5 48.M°xf4 Axf4+ 49.Ki2 Mxg5 50.Ad2 Sf8 51.Axf4 Sxf4 52.Mh2 M°d8 53.Sd2 Rg9 54.Sf2 Sf6 55.b5 M°ee9 56.Be2 g6 57.Sxf6+ M°xf6 58.Rf2 M°eg7 59.b6 Sc9 60.Nb5 Mxe6 61.Nc7 Me4 62.Sc1 Mg3+ 63.Kj2 Rb8 64.Rxb8 Sxb8 65.Nxd9 Sc9 66.Nc7 Se9 67.Bb5 Sf8 68.c4 Md3 69.Sf1 M°ff7 70.Rf3 Me5 71.Sd1 M°ff6 72.Sxd6 M°xi3+ 73.Kxi3 Mxf3 74.Sd9+ Kf10 75.Sd10+ Kf9 76.Mxf3 Sxf3 77.Bxe8+ Kf8 78.Sf10+ Rf9 79.Sxf9+ Ke7 80.Sxf3 i6 81.Sf7+ M°xf7 82.Bxf7 Kxf7 83.g5 i5 84.Ki4 Kg7 85.Kxi5 Kh7 86.j5 Ki7 87.h4 Kh7 88.j6 Ki8 89.Kh6 h7 90.Ne8 Kh8 91.j7 Kg8 92.Ki7 Kf7 93.Nc7 Kg7 94.j8 Kg8 95.Ki8 Kg7 96.j9 Kf7 97.j10=A Kg8 98.c5 h6 99.gxh6 Kf7 100.h7 Kf8 101.h8 Kg8 102.h9 Kf8 103.h10=A+ Kf7 104.Af8+ Kxf8 105.Ag7+ Kxg7 106.Ki7 Kg8 107.Kh6 Kf7 108.Nb5 Kf6 109.Nd6 c6 110.Nxb7 Kf7 111.Nd8+ Kf6 112.b7 Ke7 113.Nxc6+ Kf6 114.b8 Kf7 115.b9 Ke6 116.b10=A Kf7 117.Nd8+ Kf6 118.c6 Kf5 119.c7 Kf6 120.c8 Kf5 121.c9 g5 122.c10=A gxh4 123.Acd9 h3 124.Adc10 h2 125.Acd9 h1=A+ 126.Ah5+ Axh5+ 127.Kxh5 Kf4 128.Ab4+ Kf5 129.Ad4#

@Carlos:

I posted a game of mine vs. the Sac Chess applet in my previous reply, in case you missed it (it had my name given as 'panther').

I tried to play the applet set at 4 or 3 ply, but it seemed too slow right at move one (I also was asked to stop a Script each time, early on, but that did not help). So, I played it at 2 ply (the default). I don't know how to post the moves I played with the diagram so as to be able to replay it (if that's possible), but here's the moves that I cut and pasted after the game (I had the White side - unfortunately the machine played somewhat blindly - maybe giving some small hope that huge CV Sac Chess can resist even some other engines for a while, vs. truly strong humans):

1. f5 Ji7 2. e5 Jj9 3. Ng4 b7 4. Bd5 Mb8 5. Bxg8 Kxg8 6. Nf6 Kf9 7. Qi6 h7 8. Nxh7 Jh8 9. Nxi9 Jh7 10. Nxg10 Jxi6 11. Nxe9 Kxe9 12. O-O Ch8 13. Bf4 Jj6 14. d5 Ji6 15. Nd4 a6 16. Rbe2 Jg7 17. Rgf2 c6 18. e6 d6 19. Bxd6 Md8 20. Bc7 cxd5 21. Bxd8 Kxd8 22. e7 fxe7 23. Ne6 Kd7 24. Axd5 Kc8 25. Rf4 Jh6 26. Adc5 Kb8 27. Aa7#

I just did the test and the result is that the Applet says ***I resign!*** highlighted in red, so I don't think you have to worry, HG, because there could be a bug.

On the other hand, I already changed the definition of the King from KisO2 to KisjO2.

I use Chrome on Windows 10.

I would very much like, Kevin, if you would share a game of yours vs the Applet!

Still something strange happened, because it would never play a move when it says resign. That it doesn't print 'I resign' is indeed no big deal, but if that doesn't work, there is no telling what else might not work, so it had me worried a bit. Great that it works now, let's hope it stays that way, for everyone.

@ H.G.: Today I tried the sequence 1.Nb4 Ka7 (illegal) 2.Qa6 (illegal) followed by clicking on 'Play it!' and then 'Move'. This time I noticed it printed out 'I resign' (highlighted in red), a bit ABOVE Carlos' diagram.

I suppose it's possible I missed 'I resign' on most of my earlier test tries simply because I was looking for the words 'I resign' below the diagram instead, i.e. where the moves 1.Nb4 Ka7 2.Qa6 were printed out. Otherwise, I'm still not sure why Black's king took my queen consistently on the first day I tried the test. Anyway, I can live with it even if there is a bug somewhere, rather than my hallucinating. Thanks for the help!

If nothing happens at all, the script might have stopped because encountered an error, and in that case it would be possible to get information about it. Just hit the F12 key after you pressed 'Move' and nothing happened, and an area will open at the bottom of your browser window, with a number of tabs in it. Select the tab 'Console' if that is not already selected. Error messages should appear in there. You can close the area again by another F12.

I wrote something and discovered I wasn't logged in at the time I finished the post. Hopefully it can be recovered by an editor.

Now when I try entering 1.Nb4 Ka7 (illegal) 2.Qa6 (illegal) and then click on 'Play it!' followed by clicking on 'Move', nothing happens at all, not even an 'I resign' message. I tried this 3 times tonight and it happened 3 times that way.

I suppose when I originally saw the Black king take my Queen the first day I tried this test, something may have been different.

On the other hand, I have been told I have schizophrenia, since once in a while I see things incorrectly (such as words) now and then (for example) - though I've never seen a chess or CV position incorrectly, when I've been awake, as far as I know.

I'm not sure how to check which exact version of MS Windows Explorer I have as my browser, if that would help instead.

I am also running Windows 7 (on a desktop). I tried it with MS Internet Explorer (update version 11.0.170), but I still get the 'I resign' message. This makes it a complete mystery.

Does anyone else have this problem with the Diagram?

That the piece values differ slightly from run to run is normal; the diagram determines those by sampling a number of randomly generated positions.

@ H.G.: I'm using a MS Explorer browser (from my Windows7 laptop).

When I did what you suggested as another test, the value displayed for the king was '311 (c00)', so it would seem that it's considered royal, according to what you wrote.

[edit: Note that when I did the test a second time, the pieces were given slightly different values for some reason. For the king, '316 (c00)' was given, for example.]

That is odd indeed. What web browser are you using? I tried it with FireFox and Chrome, and in both cases it said "I resign" without moving.

One other test we can do: when you open the piece table by clicking on "here" under the diagram, and then click on the "move" header of the move column, it should switch to displaying the piece values it estimated. (Don't take those too seriously! They are often very inaccurate, but good enough for playing against someone who desn't know the piece values either.) Behind the King it should also print "(c00)", though, to indicate that it is royal. One of the explanations for what you see is that it somehow did not get through that the King is royal.

That's odd. Just now I entered the moves 1.Nb4 (square lit up as usual) Ka7 (illegal) 2.Qa6 (illegal) and then clicked on 'Play It!', and next I clicked on 'Move'. At that point the Black king took my queen on a6.

Note that the castling move that is now defined for the King (isO2) describes castling with the furthest piece in that direction. Which in this case is the Judge. If you would want it to castle with the Rook you would have to specify isjO2 . (I used the j for this, which normally means 'jumping', because in a sense you jump over the Judge while looking for the castling partner.)

For user input the diagram is not very pedantic, and allows you to castle with the Rook anyway, but it allows every other illegal move as well, so that doesn't mean a whole lot. As it is the AI would never castle with the Rook, however.

This is definitely not as it is supposed to behave. The chekmate detection does seem to work, though, as can be tested by first playing the (illegal) moves 1.Nb4 Ka7, then switching on the AI and playing 2.Qa6. It then says "I resign" without playing a move. After it lost its King, and it is its turn to move, it should say "It seems I have already lost".

No idea why that wouldn't have worked in the game you played. That it doesn't see mate-in-1 coming is normal; the default lookeahead depth is only 2 ply + quiescence search, and for mated-in-1 the King is only captured on ply 4. (So 3 ply + QS would be enough to see it.)

In any case the play will be quite weak; it is intended to be a demo for people who just have seen the rules for the first time, to get an idea what the game is like. Setting it to 4 ply would make it slightly tougher, but even then a strong player should not have much dificulty beating it. (An for large games like SAC Chess it might think too long.)

I played it a complete game, though I didn't save it. It may have been on a very low number of ply look-ahead (i.e. the default level). I don't know if it's a bug, but when it let me checkmate it in one move, the losing king took the mating piece attacking it one square away, and it continued the game after I took its king (at which point I abandoned the game). Presumably playing it using several ply look-ahead higher would give me a much tougher time.

OK, you are welcome.

Thank you Carlos! I will try to play it sooner or later!

Kevin:

I configured the Muller's applet to play your variant. Hope you like it and find it interesting to face its AI. For me it is a great resource to enjoy doing something that I like.

I share the next game I played vs it driving me the white side.

1.Ng4 Jb7 2.Nd4 Ji7 3.h4 Nd7 4.Jh3 Ng7 5.c4 Mc9 6.Jc3 Mh9 7.Mc2 Jc5 8.Mh2 Jg6 9.b4 Jd6 10.f4 a6 11.a5 Nf6 12.e5 Nxg4+ 13.Jxg4 Jde7 14.Be4 Jgf7 15.M°h3 Md7 16.Nf5 Nxf5 17.Jxf5 Cc9 18.Jxe7 Mxe7 19.Jd5 Mb7 20.Bc3 Mg7 21.Kf1 Ch9 22.Jc5 Mc7 23.d5 h6 24.e6 Je7 25.Bxg7 fxg7 26.Jb6 Af8 27.Jxc7 bxc7 28.Qf3 Rb7 29.M°c3 Bh8 30.M°e5 Ca7 31.M°d4 Cb8 32.Cc3 i6 33.M°e5 Sg9 34.Cd4 Ri7 35.Mg4 d6 36.exd7 cxd7 37.f5 d6 38.M°e6 Jd8 39.Mg6 Ah7 40.g5 Cf8 41.Rf2 hxg5 42.Mxg5 Ah6 43.i5 Aj7 44.Ce2 g6 45.f6 Ch7 46.M°e7 Cxg5 47.Axg5 Rxe7 48.fxe7+ Jf7 49.Axi6 Axi6 50.Qxi6 Bxb2 51.Mxb2 Qg7 52.Sg1 Ae9 53.Bxg6 Jf6 54.Rxf6+ Qxf6 55.Sf2 Ag7 56.Cd4 Axi6 57.Sxf6+ Sf8 58.Sxf8+ Kg10 59.Axi6 Sc9 60.Ai10#

King, Queen, Rook, Bishop, Knight and Pawn are labeled as usual. The remain thus:
Amazon: A
Marshall: M
Cardinal: C
Sailor: S
Missionary: M°
Judge: J

I renamed the Archbishop as Cardinal so I could use the A to label the Amazon.

Thank you very much!

Ok, that's fixed.

@Greg:

I just noticed that in both standard and alternate piece sets the labels for Sailor (R+F) and Missionary (B+W) are reversed.

They are currently incorrectly labeled thus:

= M

= S

They must be correctly labeled thus:

= S

= M

Could you please take a look at it?

Okay, thanks. I hadn't realized the implications of that default checkbox.

Incidentally, Tim O'Lena recently submitted a couple of Zog-related submissions to be looked over by editor(s), in case you missed that.

I just unchecked Uses HTML for you. You should check that only if you are completely depending on HTML to describe your page's formatting.

I slightly edited the rules page for Sac Chess, by noting in the introduction that there are (now) 3 rules enforcing presets available.

Unfortunately, it seems the Sac Chess rules page formatting has become messed up, once more.

Yes, it appears the formatting issues with all my submissions that were messed up previously (somehow) have been nicely resolved, by one or more of the editors it may well be.

The only possible exception might be with the Notes Section of my Full House Hexagonal Chess rules page - unfortunately I cannot recall if I left sparse/no spacing between what perhaps should be independent paragraphs in the Notes section to that rules page, so perhaps fixing it further, if it should be fixed further, might take some guesswork or arbitrary editing.

You are welcome, Kevin.

The formatting issues seem to have been fixed. It only remains to mention that the available presets are three.

@ Carlos:

Looks good, thanks!

@ Greg:

The Sac Chess rules page is not the only submission of mine that has gotten messed up, due to some formatting changes to CVP's database perhaps. I wasn't in a hurry to draw attention to all of those submissions, in case the onus somehow fell on me to modify what used to be well-formatted submissions of mine.

@Greg,

The key at the bottom that describes the pieces shows Alfaerie images.

 

So is. I already corrected it. I even put links to the three presets separately so that the player who is going to launch an invitation can choose the one he/she likes.

Yeah, I know. I have to be very careful never to switch off 'Source code', once I have started to do advanced things. Or they would all simply disappear. Embedded JavaScript disappears completely, Diagram definitions become line-filling text, the 'id' names of HTML elements are all forgotten...

The formatting probably got messed up somewhere along the way.  It can happen with the editor if you aren't careful.  Fortunately, now that revisions are saved, it will be possible to go back if it happens ...

Some sections are very poorly formatted; even the images are just part the lines. And division into paragraphs is sorely missing in a very long text.

You're welcome.

The key at the bottom that describes the pieces shows Alfaerie images.  So I think the preset should default to Alfaerie, particularly since the dragon king/dragon horse are non-standard.  A player can switch to abstract if he desires.

@Greg,

 Thank you very much!

@Kevin,

The new preset page is already updated. Please let me know if you want us to write any particular text there. You don't have to worry about past game logs being affected because I have used another settings name.

Ok, I have created a set group for Sac Chess with two Alfaerie options and an Abstract set option.  These use the proper notations for Sac Chess so be sure to update the game courier presets and change the settings name so that existing game logs don't get broken.

Note for Fergus: The graphics Kevin has used for dragon horse and dragon king may not be correct.  The cross within the graphic usually represents royal pieces but I don't see any other options for these pieces.

I have never seen the word 'compound' used in sequential meaning; I would say the Sissa is an (isosceles) hook mover. And I would not say the Tai Shogi Hook Mover is a (conjunctive) compound of two Rooks. The word 'or' usually implies 'and', and if you consider this operations on the move sets, the 'conjunctive compound' of R and B would have no moves (as B and R have no moves in common), and the conjunctive compound of K and R would be the Wazir, etc. There doesn't seem a case where this cumbersome way of describing more elementary move sets is useful, as they tend to all have simple names of their own. Note that the Sissa can neither move as a Rook, nor as a Bishop.

It seems to me the addition of 'disjunctive' serves no other purpose here then sow confusion in a case that otherwise would be correctly understood with 100% certainty.

Thank you very much, HG, for the clarification. Soon I will make the correction in what corresponds to the Sac Chess preset. It will take more time to do it in other texts because they are many.

What is paradoxical and anecdotal about this case is that I believed that making that distinction introduced clarity!

In passing, it should be borne in mind that 90% of what I write in English is "formatted"  [written, thought, said] by the Google translator.

Sissa is a compound of rook and bishop but its move is not disjunctive, it is conjunctive.

Conjunctive = A and B

Disjunctive = A or B

Am I right?

I have never seen the word 'compound' used in sequential meaning; I would say the Sissa is an (isosceles) hook mover. And I would not say the Tai Shogi Hook Mover is a (conjunctive) compound of two Rooks. The word 'or' usually implies 'and', and if you consider this operations on the move sets, the 'conjunctive compound' of R and B would have no moves (as B and R have no moves in common), and the conjunctive compound of K and R would be the Wazir, etc. There doesn't seem a case where this cumbersome way of describing more elementary move sets is useful, as they tend to all have simple names of their own. Note that the Sissa can neither move as a Rook, nor as a Bishop.

It seems to me the addition of 'disjunctive' serves no other purpose here then sow confusion in a case that otherwise would be correctly understood with 100% certainty.

@ Greg:

I don't mind, as long as Carlos is happy (the presets for Sac Chess were made by him). Just as long as previously finished or ongoing game logs of Sac Chess are not somehow broken when the changeover to a new set is made, hopefully.

Thanks Greg. I would suggest that players could choose customize the piece set between abstract and alfaerie.

The one who edited the preset in use was me with some guidance from Fergus.

I can definitely make a custom piece set for Sac so that the Centaur is properly represented.  Regarding H.G.'s question why the pieces have strange notations, I am guessing it is because this game does not have a custom piece set, so Kevin used whatever notation was associated with an appropriate graphic in the existing Game Courier piece set that came closest.

Since I'm making a new piece set anyway, we can improve the notations as well, but that's up to Kevin.

Sissa is a compound of rook and bishop but its move is not disjunctive, it is conjunctive.

Conjunctive = A and B

Disjunctive = A or B

Am I right?

And why the strange piece IDs, that seem to be totally unrelated to the piece name? 'T' for Amazon, 'G' for Sailor??? And what the heck is a 'disjunctive compound'? Is there more than one type of compound?

Hello Greg,

I would like to know if there is any way to access the set of pieces that ChessV uses for Sac Chess, that is, to which group does it belong and the name of the particular set?

I am looking to change in the current preset of Sac Chess the image of the zebra for the most appropriate of the knight/guard.

I can't believe this game hasn't been reviewed yet. This is the best game I've played that includes an Amazon. I normally leave the Amazon out of my games, because it has the power to force checkmate by itself, and that has the potential to wreak a game. However, that hasn't been a problem with this game. This game includes several other weaker compound pieces that help make it unsafe to move the Amazons out too early. To get to the point where you could use an Amazon to force checkmate against a King, you have to do lots of maneuvering of other pieces. Furthermore, the potential of the Amazon getting a bead on the King means that position is sometimes more important than material advantage. You can't count on winning just because you are ahead materially. If you find that you can't stop your opponent's Amazon, you may lose even if you're materially ahead. This makes the game more dynamic and exciting.

Sac Chess still seems to be holding up well in practical testing on Game Courier, I'm happy to see.

A while back I toyed with the idea of making novel spinoff variant(s) that included the use of N+Guard+Bishop (technically NWB) compound pieces (I've called them Freemasons) and also what I've called Ships, that is N+Guard+Rook (technically NFR) compound pieces (using either an 8x10 or 12x12 board). I had, subsequent to inventing Sac Chess, had the feeling these two triple compound pieces perhaps ought to have been included in a Sac Chess-like game, somehow, as they perhaps logically complete the set of thematic compound pieces added to the standard FIDE piece types. On the other hand, there seems to be no precedent for the use of these triple compound piece types in previously fairly-widely played CVs, e.g. shogi includes the promoted B & R types, at least, while I recall Amazons had been fairly popular, in a variant of chess played in Russia long(?) ago - even centaurs have been employed (Courier-Spiel). So, I don't feel the urge to use the Freemason and Ship compounds as strongly as I once did, as I now see Sac Chess clearly uses the 'classic' compound pieces, as Carlos once put it.

A side issue arising from all this that occured to me is: what values should the Freemason and Ship piece types have? If we note that computer studies place Archbishops (let alone Chancellors) very close to a Q in value, and also place Amazon=Q+N in value (only), at least on 8x8, there doesn't seem much room to put Freemasons and Ships between Archbishops (or Chancellors) and Amazons on a numerical value scale, one might guess (at first thought anyway). I'm not sure what I'd speculate any future computer studies might (approximately) give for the values of Freemasons or Ships, but my own tentative valuation of an Amazon (as =Q+N+P) gives more room to fit Freemasons and Ships on a values scale (e.g. for armies on 8x8 or 10x10), at least. [edit: Fwiw, for 10x10 my own tentative estimates place Chancellor=N+R+P=3+5.5+1=9.5; Amazon=Q+N+P=10+3+1=14 and Ship=(N+F+P)+R+P=(3+0.75+1)+5.5+1=11.25, for example; if I only changed the value of an Amazon, to be equal to Q+N=10+3=13, then its value would seemingly be too close to that of a Ship's.]

Is 3-times repetition a draw? That's what I'm presently going for in a game I'm playing.

Here's a Sac Chess game I played vs. Carlos arguably not so long ago. It seems like the closest Sac Chess game played between people that I've seen to date. Perhaps it's a matter of taste, but I like that of the relatively few pieces left on the board at the end, all of the 4 Amazons still remain:

/play/pbm/play.php?game=Sac%2520Chess&log=panther-sissa-2016-289-852

After some playtesting of Sac Chess, I am more confident it is playable, and may be a very rich game indeed, given it has so many pieces. What pleases me a lot is that while in chess an average game is 40 moves, with a pair of units traded on average every 5 moves (thus leaving an average of 8 pieces per side at the end of a game), in Sac Chess an average game so far on Game Courier seems to last about 60-80 moves, though at times being played out until mate (if done for chess, an average game of it might last about as long, too). It seems the rate at which a pair of units is traded in Sac Chess is about every 3.5 to 4 moves, which would also put an average game at around 80 moves, if such a game got down to 8 pieces per side (though it doesn't seem to get this far in practice, so far on Game Courier). Another nice thing about Sac Chess is that it seems to allow for more decisive games than is the case in chess, if played at a high level, I'd guess.

One thing I'm not sure about is how rich the early opening phase, or range of 'good' opening variations, can be for Sac Chess. Playing something like the Pirc Defence in chess seems less attractive here, since White's Queen is guarded by an Amazon in the start position, so White might early on hit Black's knight on the kingside with the appropriate centre pawn. Also, Open Sicilians in chess may be a little, or a lot, less attractive for White in Sac Chess. Then there are the ramifications of the Queen's Gambit Accepted in chess still waiting to be analyzed, if played in Sac Chess, and this could be really critical to the range of attractive/promising White openings. On the other hand, 'insipid' sidelines in chess may be much more interesting in Sac Chess (in regard to the early opening moves, I mean as always here). Even if White's initiative is less than in chess, this can be seen as a good thing, perhaps.

Regarding the names I chose for some of the pieces, I still like 'Missionary' and 'Sailor' as used (these seem even a bit appropriate, given what a man is crossed with, e.g. a bishop in the former case). However, I have some regret about not using 'Centaur' instead of 'Judge' (I somehow missed the Centaur entry on wikipedia, in spite of looking at its long list of fairy chess pieces several times for just such a precedent). On the other hand, maybe there's something nicer about using the name of a human occupation (Judge), rather than the name of a mythical monster; at least there were travelling judges in medieval times. Plus, I'd note that I don't completely get the consistency of why, e.g., an Amazon is called what it is, since no horse is involved in that name, and given that such a female warrior doesn't necessarily ride a horse (not only that, but a knight might be seen as a man riding a horse). But I digress.

Carlos wrote some months ago: "I have just played a game versus the HG's Fairy-Max/Winboard/Sac Chess program..."

I have a question for HG: I wasn't aware till I searched recently that Fairy-Max has its own page on the web. Is Sac Chess one of the variant programs under Fairy-Max that any viewer/user can find available even nowadays? Maybe I didn't look hard enough, but I didn't see Sac Chess listed as such. Thanks in advance, Kevin.

[Play Tester played the role of the program.]

I thought that tonight I better try unzipping that link you provided, H.G., in case I needed my sister-in-law's help tomorrow. It was pretty much as simple to unzip as you described in an earlier post. The only thing was I couldn't seem to save it as anything but a temporary download, so I'll have to download it each time I use it, unless I can figure out how not to. My used laptop was a gift from a friend, which might somehow complicate things due to any possible security measures set for him.

The program was set for 1 minute per side, and I initially tried playing at that speed. I clearly blundered a pawn for nothing very early, but for some reason the engine passed it up. Some more blunders followed (by me) and I soon allowed a mate. The next three games I tried 5 minutes, then 10, then 15. At one point I noticed I had lost on time, but was allowed to keep playing anyway (I didn't bother to figure out how to change that yet, if I wish to). Each of these 3 games I lost as well. Maybe I'm not yet used to the images for all the piece types, but the odd blunder (or once a mouse slip) kept occurring. I came closest to doing well in the 15 minute game (I always tried not to 'lose on time').

After that I set the program to have two engines play a 15 minute game. Again they each exceeded the limit and were awarded a further 15 minutes each on the clock all the same. As a spectator I thought the engines played conservatively, if not anti-positionally (IMHO). At one point Black seemed to go ahead in material considerably after about 40 moves with one trade only. Then trades came thick and fast, and eventually Black won a pawn ending two clean pawns ahead. The game only took about 80 moves (until mate), which would be about right for standard chess.

Thanks again for the link, H.G.

Sorry H.G., I hadn't been in a hurry up till now, and didn't realize you were eager. I wanted to at least see how my 2 games with Carlos were going to develop before getting more adventurous by playing a computer. Looking at our game of Sac Chess, Carlos seems to be doing very well, which doesn't suggest my chances would be good against a program (against a good one, I half expected to score say 1/4, if it would be about 200 rating points higher than my standard chess rating). 

In the meantime, it is becoming more clear to me that looking for a computer-resistant chess variant is a futile exercise, especially now that 19x19 Go computer programs are demonstrably so much stronger than before. I had guessed that it might take up to 100 more years for Go programs to take over and eventually dominate that game, from people.

I also had wanted to try to see my Glinski's Hexagonal Chess game with Carlos to a conclusion, before trying out that link you gave. An irrational concern that I might somehow go wrong and mess up my laptop in some way, before that game had finished, had been with me. Anyway, I'll try to get playing that computer program at Sac Chess soon after my brother & his wife go home tomorrow.

I've added the following to the end of the Notes section for my Sac Chess submission (to try to, in the most natural way I can imagine to date, accommodate those who dislike there being a single queen and two amazons in the setup position for Sac Chess):

"Note: to accommodate those who dislike the queen being clearly inferior to amazons both in their power AND in their number in Sac Chess at the start of a game, I can suggest the following fairly natural idea for a modified variant ('Royal Bevy Chess'), i.e. it has a similar setup and the same rules as for Sac Chess. Namely, in the setup position for Sac Chess, switch 2 queens for the 2 amazons, and switch an amazon for the single queen. This idea of having two queens and one amazon in a setup position may have first been used in 'Alekhine Chess', which is somewhat similar to Sac Chess, perhaps; here's a link to it:"

http://www.chessvariants.com/index/external.php?itemid=zAlekhineChess

I originally had in mind that the person I seem to recall who disagreed with the game produced by the inventor of Alekhine Chess (as far as the number of its Amazons to be included) was an example of a person not pleased with a particular game (other than mine, which is somewhat similar to Alekhine Chess). Clearly not everyone can always be satisfied with any particular variant, and someone may want it altered even in an unspecified way. In Sac Chess, if one has a position on the board with all piece types included, such as in the Setup position, the Amazon is the only piece that can always (unless pinned to the King) take any sort of piece type that is threatening it (I think this is a major point that you're indicating). The game is also a bit heavy on pieces that can move at the least like both a king and a rook (or bishop), e.g. both Sailors, both Amazons, and the Queen (for each side) can move like a king or rook, at a minimum. It's a drawback (of the theme of compound pieces that I used), possibly.

Whether or not it would be better to alter the game is an open question, but at this stage it's already being played on Game Courier, and I think I like the way it's turned out so far. Perhaps I (or someone else) can make a variant based on Sac Chess at a later date that may prove popular. At the moment it's the only variant I've invented (out of 10, so far) that someone (namely Carlos) kindly decided to write a Game Courier program for.

[edit 28 March 2018: I'd note, too, that, e.g., in the historic variant Courier Chess, the queen used there is a ferz-like piece, clearly inferior in powers to the guard-like piece type that is also used in that game, so it seems that Sac Chess is in such a way at least not without one or more precedent(s), in variant(s) that proved at the least somewhat popular in the past, if only regionally perhaps.]

Re:  "you can't please everyone" - No, but it is not as though I ever demanded you do 1 Amazon & 2 queens.  It was 1 of several alternative suggestions.  And these were merely examples to suggest that the issue is not insoluble.

Re: "close to standard chess in spirit".  Seems to me the pieces of FIDE chess have a high degree of ability to threaten each other without being threatened back.  Even the Queen, the most powerful piece on the board, can be threatened by the 2 knights.  Seems to me a lot of that is lacking here, for all the variety of pieces.  If an opposing piece cannot threaten you back, it is probably less powerful.

One solution would be to have two Queens, and to put the Amazon in the place of honor next to the King (and perhaps change their names).  The only thing stopping this would be a desire to keep both the traditional names, and their traditional significance.

Another solution might be to give the King some kind of enhanced movement power while the Queen is in play, such as an ability to switch places with the Queen, or an ability to jump over a Queen.

Another solution might be to give all the knight-combo pieces, including the Amazon, limited range:   2 or 3 squares (distinguishing them from the King-combo pieces). This would leaving the Queen, Bishop and Rook as the only full-range pieces.  This would leave most of the pieces geographically localized, which fits the advice of some who have discussed computer resistant variants.

There are any number of possible solutions.

In my submission I gave links from my Chess Federation of Canada website blog, including my entry there that covered Sac Chess in detail. Included in that entry was my proposal for two slight spinoff variants of Sac Chess to accomodate anyone who dislikes Amazons being clearly more powerful than a Queen. One spinoff variant ("Cash Chess") had two different piece compound pieces replacing each of the 2 Amazons in both camps. These were to be B+N+K ("Freemason") and R+N+K ("Ship") compounds, each a compound piece of my own invention (afaik). 

I wasn't keen on this spinoff variant myself, since there would be less near-symmetry in each camp, and there would be more piece types to remember in total. The other spinoff variant ("Royal Sac Chess") would let Queens have a small distinction over Amazons on at least some occasions. In this spinoff variant, in the event of stalemate or a three-fold repetition of moves (perpetual check being a case of such), if one side had more queens on the board than his opponent then he would win the game, else it would be a draw in the event of an equal number of queens.

I kind of liked this spinoff variant, as perhaps an important way to justify having Queens on the board alongside Amazons (which are clearly superior in their relative value AND movement capabilities on an empty board). On the other hand, it's using a rather artificial rule change that would drastically affect some games' final results. 

In the end, I decided that the reasons you gave for liking having a Queen, besides Amazons, were adequate enough, such as keeping a quaint royal tradition going in spite of my wanting to include many compound pieces in Sac Chess, including Amazons. The Amazon seems to get a bad rap because it is so powerful (it can mate a King on an empty board with no assistance, for instance). At least having a Queen on the board as a possible threat to trade itself for an Amazon gives a player with an Amazon one more thing to watch out for.

I am interested this variant because I am fascinated by large chess variants, and this variant is LARGE (Dragonchess beats it though).   One thing bothers me, though.  The Queen.  She retains her status as the only unique piece other than the King.  She retains her place of honor by the King's side.  But there is nothing special about her in this version.  She is trumped to two Amazons, and a number of other pieces come close to her in value.

Thought I'd give the wikipedia link below, discussing the value of the Archbishop (Princess) fairy chess piece:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_(chess)#Value

I'd note wikipedia mentions that computer self-play studies were used to establish a sort of value for this piece that Muller gave (though he nor anyone else seems to be credited for the computer studies, as far as I've read). Note also that links concerning the Chancellor (Empress) and Amazon are given by wikipedia.

Regardless of arguments about what the Archbishop's value might be in a particular chess variant, I'd note that wikipedia mentions that the computer studies led to the conclusion that the Archbishop increased its relative value (in comparison to that of a queen) on an 8x10 board, as opposed to the smaller 8x8 board. Without bringing in any notion of synergy necessarily, I can give one possible reason (or contributing reason) why that conclusion might be correct, in case no one has mentioned it. 

Namely, whereas on an 8x10 board the rook component of a queen benefits the queen as a piece by 2 extra squares covered (on an empty board) at all times, not depending at all on the location of the square, note that the knight component of the Archbishop has many more available squares to it (than on an 8x8 board) where it benefits the Archbishop as a piece, by up to 4 extra squares covered more than from a less favourable square nearby that a knight might have to settle for on the smaller 8x8 board.

I can note that on a 10x10 board (such as for Sac Chess), the rook component for a queen would by similar reasoning pick up 4 extra squares covered on an empty board (than if on an 8x8 board) whereas the knight component for an Archbishop often allows it to pick up up to (still) just 4 extra squares coverage for the Archbishop (than if on an 8x8 board), suggesting to me that a 10x10 board might not benefit an Archbishop like an 8x10 board apparently did, in terms of its value to that of a Queen. Perhaps inconclusive and murky pondering on my part, I'll admit, but it gave me pause.

H.G. wrote:

"BTW, did you just place the text string the generator gave you in a non-HTML submission, or did you have to tick 'Using HTML tags' to make it accept the diagram?"

Being tech-challenged these days, my attempt to describe what I did would be:

I went to edit my Sac Chess submission, then in doing so noticed that just above the 'Setup' box (i.e. to show the starting position for a chess variant) there now exists a sentence that mentions the Diagram Designer. I then clicked (on its blue highlighted words) "Diagram Designer" and a new window opened up, i.e. that of the Diagram Designer. Perhaps it wasn't quite obvious to a newbie how to use it even in a minimal way, but its board shape setting happened to be for a "Square" shape (since the Diagram Designer by default was for standard chess). I tried setting "Columns" = 10 and the square board increased from 8x8 to 10x10, still showing the 32 chess pieces. 

I happened to decide to click on some hignlighted words for a setting ("Next Rank", I think), and revealed to me by a new window was a long documentation. This was actually useful enough to me in a way (with my minimal desire, i.e. to at least initially find any possible quick & dirty way to make a better diagram for my Sac Chess submission), because it finally dawned on me that the 26 characters of the alphabet each represent an available chess or fairy piece type in the given set (abstract pieces), and a character is to be used as part of the FEN string. After closing this window, I saw that the FEN string default was indeed for chess, and I could quickly tell how to use the FEN string for Sac Chess pieces (and its empty squares) instead. The slight difficulty after that was deciding which letters of the alphabet corresponded to desired Sac Chess pieces, though I eventually decided to use the standard chess piece abstract figures as a sort of theme I carried over when I decided on the letters of the alphabet to represent other (fairy chess) pieces in Sac Chess in the FEN string. 

At any time I could click on an "Update" button and the Diagram Designer would show the latest version of the board, with the pieces on it. When I had finished, I knew there was a box in the Diagram Designer that contains a brief code (it described it as HTML code), and the final code corresponded to the work I had done with the Diagram Designer. The instructions above this box said to simply copy the contents of the box to my Chess Variants webpage, so I copied the contents as the first step of a quick cut & paste. I closed the Diagram Designer window, i.e. returning to my submission webpage that I was editing. I then did the pasting of the Diagram Designer code into the "Setup" box of my submission webpage, which simply showed the text of the code as a result (I had before now deleted my old version of a Setup diagram that wasn't up to snuff). After I submitted this edited version of my Sac Chess submission, now whenever I look at the new version of it, the Diagram Designer diagram I specified actually shows up on my screen.

Edit: I've identified the squares pieces are on (by text) in my Sac Chess setup diagram now.