Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

A possible pair of leapers:

Long leaper: same as in this variant except when capturing must jump over
             at least two empty squares before the captured piece.

Short leaper: moves as an Orthodox Queen and captures by overtaking. 
              the piece captured must be within two squares of the
              short leaper. It may land any vacant square somewhere 
              beyond it. It may jumpover friendly pieces, but not 
              capture them. It captures any enemy piece(s) lept over.
              The adjacent square that it lept over must be occupied.
              It may not make more than one short leap in a turn. It 
              may end its move on an edge square only when that is the 
              only way to make a particular capture.

The edge squares are essential for all the pieces since each can be swapped
there, or end there in capturing, if only from another edge square.  The
Long Leaper is a more natural piece than say a Cannon, and 
in Rococo exceeded in value by two other pieces. My estimates:
Immobilizer 10, Advancer 8, LL 7, Swapper 5, Chameleon 4, Withdrawer 3,
Cannon Pawn 2. A Triangulator, as described, or Coordinator for that
matter would not fit in well with this mix of pieces.
CVP has about 2000 games the last time I checked, somewhat fewer than
David Pritchard's Encyclopedia.  Of course, there is substantial overlap,
such as Ultima.

Yes, Rococo and Ultima should both thrive, somewhat as the open standard
and as the closed standard of the same kind of game. That open or closed -
strategic - character derives from the Pincer Pawns in Ultima and from the
edge squares and Cannon Pawns in Rococo.
Where I disagree is about tactics, that is, the officers. I would enrol
one Coordinator, one Swapper, one Withdrawer, one Advancer, one Long
Leaper, one Immobilizer and one Chameleon in both games. I don't see what
makes the Advancer, the Coordinator or the Long Leaper worthwhile only in
Ultima or only in Rococo. Indeed, I find the lack of either frustrating.
(Should one or two new pieces - not pieces capturing by replacement -
prove valuable in a future Ultima-Rococo spin-off, I would also call for
adding them.)
As for evaluation, well, I would reverse George's values for the Advancer
and the Long-Leaper and also for the Swapper and the Chameleon.

Peter, I think your proposal is superior to both the original Rococo and to
what I suggested. The Archer (or the Bird, but I prefer the Archer) brings
in a rifle capture element which is quite overdue. (Should the Archer
prove too strong, I would suggest to have it capture only at a distance of
a Knight's move (or only at a distance of two squares), so as to retain
the possibility of an Archer acting upon an Immobilizer.)
True, Ultima or Rococo probably shouldn't feature a Coordinator if there
are already four officers which capture more or less through relative
position (not to mention the King and the Pawns). However, although the
Coordinator is somewhat arbitrary and sometimes inefficient, it offers a
flavor of delocalized capture which I would like to revive into another
piece, maybe on a bigger board. How about a queen-moving piece which would
capture an officer (maybe not the King) by reaching its starting square.
Or by reaching the square it last occupied?

I've playtested Roccoco with Archers and find it quite playable. The way
an Archer can pick off Pawns is a strength, not a weakness. As in Ultima
and standard Rococo, the Withdrawer is quite weak. Why not replace the
Advancer with the even stronger Pushme-Pullyu and add a new piece type?

Some guesses at Rococo piece 'beginner values':

Immobilizer=4
Long Leaper=3
Advancer=3
Swapper=2
Cameleon=2
Withdrawer=1
Cannon Pawn=1
Archer=2
Pushme-Pullyu=5

Some scary exotics:
LL/PP (can caputure as either or both)=9 
Archer/Advancer=6 
Cameleon/Swapper=5 

Rococo With Different Armies, anyone?

Regarding pieces which simply capture by relative positions, one Advancer
(a Pushme-Pullyu is too strong, and a FIDE-Queen not very different), one
Long-Leaper and one finely-tuned Archer seem enough.

The Swapper, which like the Immobilizer, the Chameleon or the Shield, is a
piece of its own nature, also combines two mechanisms, mutual capture and
mutual displacement, neither of which is very powerful.

Why not have the Withdrawer, which is worth less than half any other
officer, recruit an enemy piece it withdraws from, instead of merely
capturing it, provided that enemy piece has been previously lost?
(variant: it could convert by withdrawing one square, even if that piece
hasn't been captured for its side, and capture if it withdraws two or more
squares)

This raises the problem of Pawn recruitment. Should the Pawns be dealt
with individually, mirror-like, or could a Pawn replace any other Pawn?
I would suggest to make Pawns simply faithful.
(Unmakers require a similar decision.)

Swapper question ... Can a swapper perform 'mutual destruction' with a
friendly piece?  The rules aren't clear on this.

Thanks!

Capture by mutual destruction is capture still, and you may only capture
opposing pieces in Rococo.  The loss of the capturing Swapper is more in
the nature of a cost for that capture.

There is an inconsistency between David's animated illustration for the
Chameleon and Peter's Zillions file.
Is a Chameleon allowed to capture a Long-Leaper and/or a Withdrawer and/or
an Advancer and swap with an enemy Swapper in the same move, as shown on
the animated illustration but not allowed by the zrf?
Besides, is a Chameleon allowed to swap with its own Swapper?
(The zrf allows it, though it is not formally equivalent to the Swapper
swapping with its own Chameleon, since the Swapper may be immobilized.
For the record, a similar rule would be unplayable for a variant with
Chameleons and Shields. The Chameleon and Shield would protect each other,
and the Shield would protect the King.)
If the answer to both questions is yes, is a Chameleon allowed to capture
a Long-Leaper and/or a Withdrawer and/or an Advancer and swap with a
friendly Swapper in the same move?

Peter,

I think that the freer capturing is really more in line with your
rationale for the edge sqaures in the first place: to keep pieces from
using the edges to hide from Long Leapers. 

So how about:  A piece may not move to an edge square except to capture a
piece which it could not capture by moving to a non-edge square. This
applies even if the starting square is an edge square. The Swapper's swap
move is a capture for this purpose whether the piece swapped is friendly or
hostile, as is a Chameleon's swap with a Swapper whether friendly or
hostile.

For the sake of posterity, here is a link to the game in question.

I see two logically independent questions here:
1) What should the rules be?
2) What is the correct interpretation of the rules as written?

The first question is relevant to future games of Rococo and should be answered by the inventors, taking input from the rest of us if they wish to. For the particular case of the present game, I think that the second question is relevant, and that ideally it should be answered by consensus.

The rules as written contain a general statement describing the concept of edge squares and their role in the game, and a specific statement for each type of piece, describing how that piece behaves with respect to edge squares.

The general statement:

These marked squares on the edge of the board are edge squares, and a move may only end on an edge square if necessary for a capture. Or in other words, a piece may only end up on an edge square by making a capturing move that would not be possible without landing on the edge square. This includes moves that start on edge squares.

The specific statement for the Long Leaper:

It may end its move on an edge square only when that is the only way to make a particular capture.

As I read these rules, the only thing that could be construed to forbid my move to x0 is the definite article in the second sentence of the general statement. It's worth noting that David's interpretation, based on this definite article, is paradoxical (as Mike Nelson has pointed out), and that the definite article only appears in a sentence which is presented as a rephrasing of the previous sentence. The first sentence of the general statement and the specific statement both imply (in my opinion; there may be some room for debate) that one edge square is as good as another. Since I can't capture the black Leaper by moving to an interior square, x1 and x0, both being edge squares, should be equally permissible under the rules as written.

Peter's emendation of 'landing on' to 'landing on or passing over' does produce a well-defined rule, but in my opinion it is inconsistent with the intention of the edge squares. If the black Leaper were on x3, then this rule would say that I can capture only by moving to x2, not x1. But a piece on x1 is no safer from a Leaper than a piece on x2. On the other hand, a piece on x0 is safer, so it would seem reasonable to forbid capture on x0, not because it is not the first square beyond the victim, but because it is on two edges rather than one.

In fact, I think this was Mike Madsen's understanding of the rules. (I hope he'll correct me if it wasn't.) While I maintain my belief that this is not the rule as written, it seems sensible, and in my opinion would be the best rule for the game. It could perhaps be stated most easily by defining three classes of squares (interior, edge, and corner), and forbidding a piece to move to an edge square except to make a capture which cannot be made by moving to an interior square, or to move to a corner square except to make a capture which cannot be made by moving to an interior or edge square.

I have read the rules, very carefully, a great many times, and I remain convinced that my original interpretation was the correct interpretation of the rules as they were written before yesterday's revision. I have explained my analysis in gory detail, and of those who disagree, only Greg Strong has provided reasoning based on the text of the rules in response.

You say that under my interpretation the Long Leapers would have too much power. That may be so, but that is a subjective assessment which can only be made based on experience with the game (or perhaps experience with similar games and an intuition superior to mine). The fact (if that word can be used) that a particular set of rules does not yield the best of all possible games does not mean that that set of rules was not written down. As it happens, I think that the Long Leapers in Rococo may be too powerful regardless of which rule is used for capture along an edge. But one's opinions of the merits of a game are not relevant to interpretation of the written rules. The rules are what they are, not what you, or I, or anyone else, think they ought to be.

Also, the fact that some anonymous player once played a move which was not the best move under my interpretation (which you call the 'wrong' interpretation) cannot be taken as evidence for or against any of the three interpretations. It is not even evidence that the player interpreted the rules one way or another, unless the annotations (which I have not seen) contain some discussion of the matter.

Peter,

Regarding game design, I agree with Michael Nelson's last comment, but after your last comment I understand your position much better. I now see this as a question, not of logic, but of taste. And it's not my game, so I'll shut up about that.

I'm glad to see that the rules have been revised to reflect your intentions (although I had hoped that the tournament issue would be resolved first), and I believe that the revised rules are equivalent to what you have indicated in recent comments. But, if you're interested, I have a few suggestions as to how I think they could be written better, so as to avoid future misunderstandings.

The sentence that was most controversial in the original rules was this one:

Or in other words, a piece may only end up on an edge square by making a capturing move that would not be possible without landing on the edge square.

The section labeled 'Rules' seems unnecessarily complex and extremely redundant. The same statement is made at least four times, and if I were unfamiliar with Rococo, I would have to read this section three or four times to be sure I had it right.

You've now included a precise mathematical definition of the term 'capturing move'. This is good, because I now understand what you mean by the term, but I'm not sure that this is the best term for this definition. To see what I mean, consider this example: A Long Leaper on a4 could capture an opposing piece on a3 by moving to a2 or a1 (assuming both of these squares are vacant). In the absence of a definition of the term 'capturing move', I would regard these as two distinct capturing moves, since they are two distinct moves. But it seems natural to say that they result in the same capture. The rules would be clearer (to me, at least) if the term 'capturing move' were replaced everywhere with 'capture'.

The inclusion of the clarifying example is perhaps helpful, but it is not the best possible example, since it does not fully distinguish between the three interpretations of the original rules. A better example can be formed by placing the piece to be captured on x3 rather than x2, so that under the revised rules the Long Leaper can capture by moving to x2, but not to x1 or x0. Also, the example breaks up the flow of the redundant rules; perhaps it could be moved to its own paragraph. And if the rules refer to the square x9, the ASCII diagram should be modified to refer to the last rank as 9, rather than 00.

The formal statement of the edge-square rules is unambiguous, but statement 4 is completely unnecessary. It follows from the first three statements, and should therefore be treated as a theorem rather than a rule. If I'm not mistaken, the entirety of the edge-square rules could be stated in one sentence, something like:

A piece p capturing a set P of opposing pieces may land on or pass over only the minimal number of edge squares necessary for p to capture all the pieces in P.

The piece descriptions of the Long Leaper and the Withdrawer should include statements that these pieces, when moving along an edge, may move only the shortest possible distance for a particular capture. In fact, since each piece description contains the edge-square rules applying to that piece, I wonder whether it would be better for the 'Rules' section simply to introduce the general concept of edge squares, and leave the details to the individual piece descriptions.

Finally, I've noticed some typos: 'mininal', 'Moves that captures', and 'fewist'.

Is it legal for a Chameleon to hop over a longleaper and capture it, by landing on a enemy pawn, and also capturing it? This problem arised during a game.

It seems to me in this case:

+---+---+---+---+
| C | l | p |   |
+---+---+---+---+

However, in this case:

+---+---+---+---+
| C |   | l | p |
+---+---+---+---+

David, are you out there? Would you like to comment?

The rules for the Long Leaper as written are ambiguous. The offending
phrase in the list of moves the Long Leaper may not make 'jump over
adjacent pieces' might be interperpereted in two different ways. 

I think we can determine the correct rule by examining the author's
intent and the history of Ultima.

First, the Rococo LL rules are cut and pasted from this site's Ultima
rules. This indicates that the author intends the LL to have the same
move
in Rococo as it has in Ultima (the special circumstance of edge square
excepted).

So the question resolves into what is the correct rule in Ultima. In
'Abbott's New Card Games', Abbott lists the sources for the capture
powers in Ultima. The capture power of the Long Leaper is stated to be
derived form those checker variants where kings can leap over and capture
enemy pieces anywhere on the same diagonal line. Abbott limits the
capture
power by prohibiting change of direction, but the LL's capture power is
otherwise not altered from these checker variants. 

The rules of these several checker variants are unambiguous: a king may
capture a piece adjacent to itself, but may not capture two or more
enemies  adjacent to one another: there must be a vacant landing square
for each capture.

Therefor the correct rule is that the Long Leaper may capture a piece
adjacent to itself as long as a landing square is available, but may not
capture (or leap over without capturing), two or more mtutually adjacent
pieces--that is, a landing square is required for each capture.

I agree that this rule should be rephrased on both the Rococo and Ultima
pages.

It's not too hard to examine the history of Ultima, but it's pretty
hard,
on the other hand, to examine the history of the author's intent.  How
are
you going to examine the intent?

It's certainly reasonable to assume that Rococo descends from the games
of Baroque (from the name itself) or from Ultima (by which other name it
is known, admitting the possibility of house rules that distinguish the
two) but it appears to be pretty hard to arrive at a statement of intent.

How would we know now, long after the act of the game' creation, what it
was at the time of creation?

Did the author address the matter then, or is the author addressing the
matter now, as in a 'nunc pro tunc' solution for what now appears to be
a problem?

talking about 'authors intent' by 'none' a few comments ago, i don't
think it matters how the inventor of ultima (Robert Abbott) intended the
longleaper to move, at the time of creation, i think it matters more how
he thinks it should move right now. 
an author can create a game, and all the pieces move 'as intended', but
that doesn't mean the game will play 'as intended' .. for 'some reason
or other' .. and i don't think that is a fault by the author, games with
unusual pieces probably have to be play tested for awhile, and not
everyone has the chance to do that. i don't see a problem 'adjusting' a
game to 'fine tune' it, at a later date.
as far as the authors of games that sprung from ultima, they too should
adjust the movement of the longleaper to play best for their game, seeing
some of these 'ultima' games turned out to be different, and really
their own game, inspired from ultima.

As was mentioned earlier, there is no way of gauging a history of 'design intent' short of reviewing the games available to the designer at the time the game was designed, and paying special attention to the comments that were written back when the game was designed. Waiting a few years for some differences to arise, and then looking at the new comments, is only good for saying what the designer's current intentions might be, not what they were when the game was first designed.

that both the Long Leaper and the Advancer are equally prohibited from capturing adjacent pieces, and that adjacent captures were intended to be limited to the King and the Withdrawer.

It does so by reference to the rules that are similar, and by contrast to the rules that are different. We ought to know that Rococo somehow descends from Baroque. That much we should know from the way their names are spelled. But there is also the issue of the extent of the game's inheritance. At this point, it is unclear whether the Leaper of Rococo was actually intended to be any bit different from the Leaper of Baroque, which I assume to be the same as the Long Leaper of Ultima. Perhaps we should dwell a moment on the nomenclature for the Leaper, and conclude that games with 'Long' Leapers operate according to different sets of rules than those other games featuring general purpose leapers. (Even the cannonball pawn, for instance, is arguably a kind of Leaper, one that forbids capturing adjacent pieces in favor of those one square away.) But unless someone can cite a reference that can be accurately dated back to the time that Rococo was invented, it will ultimately be a matter moot than dispositive.

Short of that, we could just as soon flip a nickel.

• If the nickel comes up heads, we believe the written rules, which have consistently indicated that Rococo's Long Leaper moves and captures in the same way as Ultima's Long Leaper.
• If the nickel comes up tails, we believe the testimony of the game's inventor, Peter Aronson, who has consistently indicated that Rococo's Long Leaper moves and captures in the same way as Ultima's Long Leaper.
• If the nickel balances on its edge, then we'll have to think of something else. Pistols at dawn?

(As for reference to old emails, unless they are extremely old documents, they'd have to be subject to authentication somehow, and I'm not sure they are even capable of that.)

Hi! I was exploring Rococo's ZRF, I found many divergences between what I
was expected to be correct and what does Zillions do.
Now I have many questions to any one concerned with Rococo:
1) wether the Chameleon could swap with the Swapper, jumping over any Long
leaper;
2) wether the Chameleon could swap and capture any Withdrawer or
Advancer;
3) wether a Pawn that's already on the 9th rank could promote by moving
sidewards (it's clear it could not go to the 10th rank);
4) wether a piece on the outer ring could 'commit suicide' (i.e. - does
this count as capturing?).

I will appreciate having authors' opinion.

Thanks a lot.

Well, I am not an author, but I think the answers are:
1.- No.
2.- No.
3.- Yes.

1-2: The rules on this page state quite clearly, 'Swaps with Swappers may be combined with other captures.' Also, the animated illustration unambiguously shows a Chameleon swapping with a Swapper and capturing a Withdrawer, a Long Leaper, and an Advancer in the same move.

3: The only requirement for promotion is that the Cannon Pawn's move end on the 9th or 10th rank. There is no restriction on where the move must begin. Therefore a Cannon Pawn may promote after moving along the 9th rank.

4: A move to an edge square is permitted only when necessary for a capture. Moves from edge squares are unrestricted. Suicide by an immobilized piece on an edge square is surely not a move to an edge square, and is therefore permitted.

Rococo's claim to clarity is a matter of how clear the moves and captures of the pieces are, not, alas the clarity of either the write-up or the ZRF. Game rules are really hard to write well, and just when you think you've made everything unambigious, a new issue arises. As for the ZRF, probably it needs to be coded again from scratch, but I don't think either Dave nor I have the time nor energy these days. Sorry.

I wonder if someone considers making a Mini-Rococo (I can't think of a better name,) which uses the standard chess board and pieces (without flipping the rook) ?

I would propose this setup :
 
   +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+  
8  |\\\|\b\|\n\|\k\|\q\|\n\|\r\|\\\|
   +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+  
7  |\\\|:p:| p |:p:| p |:p:| p |\\\|
   +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+ 
6  |\\\|   |:::|   |:::|   |:::|\\\|
   +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
5  |\\\|:::|   |:::|   |:::|   |\\\|
   +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
4  |\\\|   |:::|   |:::|   |:::|\\\|
   +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
3  |\\\|:::|   |:::|   |:::|   |\\\|
   +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
2  |\\\| P |:P:| P |:P:| P |:P:|\\\|
   +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
1  |\\\|\R\|\N\|\Q\|\K\|\N\|\B\|\\\|
   +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+
     a   b   c   d   e   f   g   h    

The edge squares are marked with \\\ . Don't mind the checkering. 

P's are Canon pawns, they promote on the 7th or the 8th rank.

K is King.

Q is Pushme-Pullyu

R is Immobilizer

N is Long-Leaper

B is swapper (or Chameleon, but i hate this piece.)



What do you think ?

Continue :

Mini-Rococo can be possibly played with the rule than no more than two pieces can be captured on the same turn.

(Why two ? to make it different from chess, that's all.)

The easiest way to simplify the Chameleon is to disallow the combination of captures; although that can still lead to complex cases where there are multiple possible methods of capture available at the same time.

If it were to be replaced, what would you replace it with? Oddly, this morning I find myself wondering if returning the Ultima Coordinator , discarded during the original Rococo design process would make sense. Yes, it was felt to be unclear, but then, that complaint can be made against the Chameleon as well.

I have never played Rococo, but in looking over the rules page it does appear interesting and challenging.

I do disagree with you when you state, '5 or 10 CVs deserving own tournament or even entire website. Rococo would probably be the only one developed under CVPage auspices worthy of those entitlements.'

I disagree because game 'likes and dislikes' are highly a matter of opinion and preference. Fergus's Mortal Kombat Shogi, for example, in my opinion, is an excellent game that seems to be a natural evolution of Shogi and easily deserves its own tournament and website... but, that likely may not be the opinion of many. There are a lot of games here that I believe are great, Templar Chess, Maxima, Modern Shatranj, to list just 3 examples. And I could list many more, but, my list would just be my opinion.

I do agree that it would be nice to see a Rococo tournament.

Again congratulations on your Rococo standing.

The rules are well written but just need to be updated for clarifications from the 97 comments over the years. Here are several Rococo puzzles without stress on board positions as in mates-in-three:
(1) Can a piece ever legally move from border corner to border corner, X00 to Z0 or X0 to Z00? What piece or pieces under what circumstance(s)?
(2) What is the maximum number of pieces that may be captured on one move? 
(3) Is there any piece that may never move horizontally or vertically along border squares?
(4) What is the theoretical minimum number of moves for a Rococo Pawn to promote?
(5) Describe the quickest possible Rococo Fool's Mate.***  
***[Fool's Mate is just problemists' Helpmates from the start of the game. Helpmates were popularized by T.R. Dawson in the 1930s. This would be a good exercise for anyone who has not yet read every rules-set write-up. Namely -- expanding on that theme -- as you read them all, for each of the 4500 CVs of the Chess Variant Page: (a) figure its genuine Fool's-Mate equivalent, and please determine (b) does any of the 4500 CVs require a Fool's Mate of greater than 8 moves? Or 10 moves? Some CVs actually take quite a few, but so many as 10? Hint: think short-range-piece CVs.]