Check out Symmetric Chess, our featured variant for March, 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 ]

Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Earlier Reverse Order LaterLatest
[Subject Thread] [Add Response]
M Winther wrote on Mon, May 29, 2006 07:21 PM UTC:
A new piece, correct me if I'm wrong. The Elk moves differently depending on the colour of the square. If positioned on a black square it moves like a Rook. If positioned on a white square it moves like a Knight. This actually works! The knight move always implies change of square colour. It is a very interesting piece for the tactician. It is logical to combine a short leaper with a long slider this way. Note that it is a much lighter piece than the Chancellor. The Elk's value is 4, that is, Knight + pawn, or Bishop + pawn. In regular chess the Rooks play a passive role in the first half of the game. The Elk has part of the Rook's power, which can now be utilized early in the game. It is powerful enough to give mate to a lonely King.

The elk (amer. 'moose') has actually been trained for battle service, in the cavalry of Charles XII of Sweden (1682-1718). Elks are much faster and more powerful than horses. However, it proved a time-consuming and costly task to train elks so the project was abandoned.

I implemented a zrf called Elk Chess.
--Mats

Joe Joyce wrote on Tue, May 30, 2006 02:27 AM UTC:
A very interesting piece, but I'm not sure of its valuation at 4, exactly
midway between rook and knight. I admit it's a crippled chancellor, but
is it  reduced that much? I would suspect it's more powerful than a
guard, say, which is also valued at 4. And while the knight component is a
weaker piece, I'm not sure the elk should be valued at less than a rook.
I'd guess it in the 5-7 range. I'd think a player's tendency would be
to use the knight move to post the piece in an advantageous position for
the rook and let it passively exert power for a while. And I'd be
inclined to move it like a dabbabah, staying on black squares as much as
possible to get the greater power; just using the knight move to leap over
pieces to get in and out. Admittedly you've made the elk's knight
component colorbound - no elknight can attack white squares - but the rook
component can attack any square on the board. Can't see how it's not in
the neighborhood of 6. But then, I'm far from an expert :-) and have been
wrong before. And speaking of being wrong, would it be wrong for me to
suggest considering making a few themed pieces and creating a game around
them? You're very creative with pieces, but replacing 1 FIDE piece with
your new piece and playing from there is kind of just training you in
using the new piece. You are showcasing pieces rather than creating a
whole new game. Replace the knights with elks instead of the rooks -
another new game, with a little more power. Since the knight component is
colorbound, replace the bishops with elks and get a different game still.
This soon becomes unsatisfying; there are a zillion pieces out there which
can somehow fit, but it becomes a slightly different FIDE game rather than
a truly unique variant. Hey, don't sell your pieces short. Give them a
standout game to be in. 
Enjoy.

M Winther wrote on Tue, May 30, 2006 06:36 AM UTC:
Joe, the evaluation of the Elk builds on tests with Zillions. Zillions
internal evaluation algorithm places its value between a knight and rook.
It is quite logical because it is not a knight *and* rook. It is a knight
*or* rook. Hence its value is the average of 3 and 5. However, as its
knight capabilities are reduced (it cannot jump to white squares) its
value should be less than 4. But the Elk's maneuverability makes its rook
capabilities more useful. This increases its value to around 4. I suppose
it's logical. It is true that I have   chosen the simple method of
exchanging a piece in the Fide setup. It is much easier to test a piece in
a well-known context. Moreover, the result happens to be quite fun and
interesting. New tactical and strategical aspects are introduced. But
please feel free to use the new pieces in more ambitious game constructs.
Due to its relative low evaluation it is a very useful piece. Comparatively, a 
Chancellor isn't very useful. Its value is so great so you can't use it very 
much, except exchanging it for an enemy Chancellor or queen. 
--Mats

M Winther wrote on Tue, May 30, 2006 09:45 AM UTC:
Joe, I followed your suggestion and replaced the knights with Elks, instead of the rooks. It's implemented as a variant in my Elk Chess. It seems to work fine, too. I think it has to do with the fact that the Elk's value is on a par with the other pieces. If one introduces Chancellors to the Fide setup, I don't think the game would work very well.
--Mats
(and now I've uploaded a bugfixed version)

Doug Chatham wrote on Tue, May 30, 2006 02:37 PM UTC:
Does the Elk do Queenside castling?

M Winther wrote on Tue, May 30, 2006 02:52 PM UTC:
Doug, 
Yes, in the variant where Elks replace the rooks.
--Mats

Joe Joyce wrote on Tue, May 30, 2006 03:27 PM UTC:
The replacement of the knights with elks basically *had* to work, as would
the rook-elk swap [similar pieces in the same spot]. The replacement of
bishops by elks is a bit cludgier, but gives a hint of a theme. Replace
the bishops with elks and the queen with a chancellor (R+N). Give the king
a knight escape move instead of castling. Now you've got a bishopless game
that is fairly close to FIDE in power - if your elk valuation is correct,
within roughly a pawn's worth of power. [This might make for a decent
CWDA army.] It may not be the best of games, but it's a coherently themed
game, and showcases the elk equally as well as the FIDE version. You'd
offer your 'Elk Chess' as a training game for the elk, and a themed game
as the 'actual' variant. This way you're sneaking 2 games in under the
guise of 1, and you've done what you wanted. You showcased the piece, and
you got the alternate FIDE game into the mix. But you've also taken that
one step more and designed a game as well as a piece. I believe you
commented somewhere that you thought the elk and scorpion would work well
together. Come up with another new piece or three, [maybe the
squire/jumping general/mammoth could fit in] and give us a new game. Of
course, if I had some really cool new pieces that worked great in FIDE, I
wouldn't listen to some old guy who wants it done another way either. ;-)
Keep the pieces coming anyhow. Enjoy

Alfred Pfeiffer wrote on Tue, May 30, 2006 05:13 PM UTC:
Hello Mats,

why do you not use an other name for your new piece?
'Elk' (German 'Elch')is already the name for a known fairy chess
piece
(look at 'http://www.softdecc.com/pdb/pieces.pdb?langt=EN&langn=EN').

There is already a lot of confusion because of the existence of
different names for same pieces, but the situation becomes extrem
mistakably by using same names for different pieces.

Alfred Pfeiffer

P.S.: This remark is valid also for other new pieces you introduced,
e.g. 'http://www.chessvariants.org/piececlopedia.dir/scorpion.html'
describes an other 'Scorpion', and maybe also the name 'Mammoth' is
already used by fairy chess composers (but I do not know their 
definition).

M Winther wrote on Tue, May 30, 2006 07:20 PM UTC:
Alfred, I don't think it matters much that names sometimes collide. If I
search the Internet, and check the Encyclopedia of Chess Variants, then I
will find that all the good names are already taken. If the name
'Scorpion' had already been used by an established chess variant, then I
would have chosen another name. But the 'Scorpion King' is more of a
phantasy piece,it's fun, but will surface very rarely. I did not know
about the 'Elch', but it seems like it hasn't even been implemented in
a game(?). Then it's no problem at all. I can employ that name for a
piece that is likely to be more successful than the 'Elch'.

In chess it is common rule that it's not the first inventor of a
variation that has the right to the variation name. The variation receives
the name of the chessplayer who has employed the variation, analysed it,
played it, and put down a great deal of work in it. Anybody could invent
opening variations 'en masse'. This does not mean that they belong to
this chess player and that ECO should relate his name. It's the same
thing with chess pieces. Anybody could invent chess pieces. But that's
not enough. He has to employ them in a game construct, etc. And when it
has become established and well-known, then the piece name is fully
established, too. I don't think anybody would name their new pieces
Chancellor or Archbishop, for instance.

Alfred Pfeiffer wrote on Wed, May 31, 2006 09:33 AM UTC:
Mats, I have to rehabilitate you partially because I read now that in the
anglophone countries the problem friends use the denotation Moose for
that piece which was named as elk in the cited source (from Germany),
look e.g. to 'http://homepage.ntlworld.com/gpjnow/VC.htm'.

But here are fairy chess definitions for some others of your animals:

'Elephant': Queen+Nightrider, used also in some game variants, 
            e.g. 'Wolf Chess'
            (http://www.chessvariants.org/large.dir/wolf.html)

'Mammoth':  moves like a rook but only if it can capture
            (from A. M. Dickins: A guide to fairy chess.)

Alfred Pfeiffer

Alfred Pfeiffer wrote on Wed, May 31, 2006 02:01 PM UTC:
Hi Mats, 

your definition of 'Elk Chess' generates an asymmetry in the
possibilities for the initial position:  White can develop immediately its
elk on the king side with a knight move to the row in front of its pawn,
Black cannot do so.  At the queen side the situation is inverse.

You could reach easily symmetry by a little change in the rules:
 - for white swap the colors when the elk has to move as knight/rook;
 - for the black elk let the definition as it is.
(Also a converse definition would be possible, depending at which wing you
prefer a quick development of this piece.)

Shortly you could summarize this new rule as follow:
The Elk moves at squares of its own color like a rook, at squares of 
the opposite color as a knight (or the converse regulation). 

Alfred Pfeiffer

M Winther wrote on Wed, May 31, 2006 04:14 PM UTC:
Alfred, I think the asymmetry in Elk Chess is probably good.
It creates a strategical tension, and castling will tend to be
on different wings. Moreover, should it not be asymetric, then
the Elks would tend to be exchanged immediately, e.g.,
1.Eg3 Eg6.

Concerning the Elephant (in my Elephant Chess), this is not
my invention. It derives from time-honoured Burmese Chess,
where it is called Elephant, and it also exists in Shogi, where
it is called Silver General.
--Mats

Joe Joyce wrote on Thu, Jun 1, 2006 05:01 AM UTC:
Hi, Mats. Shouldn't I at least get honorable mention on your Elk Chess
page for coming up with Elk Chess II? ;-) Joe

M Winther wrote on Thu, Jun 1, 2006 07:57 AM UTC:
Joe, no that does not qualify to be mentioned! But I am still not convinced
that the notion of Elks together with Rooks works that well. What are the
Rooks supposed to do when the Elk takes control of an open file? They
can't oppose because the rook is worth more than the Elk. However, I
later found out that, thanks to Elks, one can play on the wings instead
and temporarily ignore the open files. So it's possible that this variant
works anyway. Time will tell.
--Mats

Alfred Pfeiffer wrote on Thu, Jun 1, 2006 09:33 AM UTC:
Hello Mats, you wrote
I think the asymmetry in Elk Chess is probably good.
It creates a strategical tension, and castling will tend to be on different wings.
Moreover, should it not be asymetric, then the Elks would tend to be exchanged immediately, e.g.,
1.Eg3 Eg6.
Your arguments are plausible and the opinion is to accept.
Notwithstanding I propose you to introduce both types of the Elk
(of course this needs slightly different graphics to distinguish them):
  • the B/W-Elk: it moves on the black squares as rook, but on the white squares it jumps like a knight
    (this is the actual used type); and
  • the W/B-Elk: it moves on the white squares as rook, and on the black squares it leaps like a knight
    (I proposed this type for the white pieces).

With this two types you may build easily different setups (symmetric or not, first move as knight or not).

Did you consider to apply this new method (different move possibilities depending on the color of the square)
to other combinations of pieces, e.g.

  • Elk pawns: move (when not capturing) as pawn or as knight (forward only), capture always diagonal;
  • a Rook/Nightrider piece (how to name it?)

Alfred Pfeiffer


M Winther wrote on Thu, Jun 1, 2006 02:07 PM UTC:
Alfred, I think I will have a break now. If you have a good game idea you
could always ask somebody at the Zillions site to implement it. Sometimes
they will.
--Mats

Joe Joyce wrote on Fri, Jun 2, 2006 01:05 AM UTC:
Alfred, I think we've been dismissed. But that's okay, because I've been
thinking. I've come up with a couple new pieces. I'm calling them the
NightRunner and the BishopRunner. The NR moves like a knight or a rook,
depending on the color of the square the piece is on. There are, of
course, two complimentary types. The BR moves like a bishop or a rook,
depending on whether the number of squares the piece last moved was even
or odd. Again, there are complimentary types. I like these pieces, I think
there's a great future for them. I'm going to add them to my Jumping
General, a new piece I discovered last year. It slides 1 or jumps 2 in any
direction (orthogonally or diagonally). The JG isn't going to be just big,
it's going to be mammoth!
Now just between you and me, Alfred, I was inspired by your idea, but I
don't know whether or not to give you any credit. After all, I expanded
on the idea and made it uniquely my own. What's that? Eric Greenwood's
Squire is my jumping general, and he used it in Rennaissance Chess over a
quarter century ago, and it's still being played? Well, maybe he might
get some credit.

I put it up to all. What does everybody think? Credit, or no credit?

M Winther wrote on Fri, Jun 2, 2006 04:39 AM UTC:
Joe, I don't know what got you upset. If it was the trivial idea of
replacing the knights with Elks, I had already investigated that before
you proposed it, and I had dismissed it, for reasons I already  told. But
when you proposed it again I investigated it again, and decided to add it
as a variant. There is too much touchiness in this forum sometimes. 
I have not claimed that the Mammoth is my invention. I say on my homepage,
and in my zrf:s that '...The Mammoth piece (also called Mastodon) is not 
entirely new. Under other names it appears as the queen analog in Grand 
Shatranj and as the royal piece in Atlantean Barroom Shatranj. In EV 
Greenwood's Renniassance Chess (not misspelt) from 1980, the piece is 
named Squire.' So these allegations directed against me are false. Other 
inventors have already acquired the Squire and renamed it, before I did so. 
Probably they had no idea that the Squire existed. Moreover, the demand 
that I should have to check up every obscure fairy piece in all kinds of 
publications, before I appropriate a piece name, is ridiculous. 

Anyway, I now leave this forum because there is a very strange underlying 
enmity here. I feel no need to put up with it.
--Mats

James Spratt wrote on Fri, Jun 2, 2006 11:32 AM UTC:
Aw-w, c'mon, guys; de gustibus non disputandum est.

Joe Joyce wrote on Fri, Jun 2, 2006 04:30 PM UTC:
James, you're right. I argued emotionally instead of logically, and
created a public display of irritation and bad manners. I hereby apologize
to everyone. I should not have done it. I will do my best to avoid such
things in the future. Joe

Joe Joyce wrote on Fri, Jun 2, 2006 06:11 PM UTC:
Mats, I must start with an apology. My statement was emotional and rather
over-the-top, instead of reasonable. I'm sorry. I should not have posted
that statement. I was wrong to do so. And my display of bad manners makes
my arguments about your conduct far more difficult to prosecute either
successfully or comfortably. 
Nevertheless, I will attempt to explain where our differences lie. I will
copy some of the CV comments:
2006-05-30	Mats Winther Verified as Mats Winther	None	Joe, I followed your
suggestion and replaced the knights with Elks, instead of the rooks. It's
implemented as a variant in my Elk Chess. It seems to work fine, too. I
think it has to do with the fact that the Elk's value is on a par with
the other pieces. If one introduces Chancellors to the Fide setup, I
don't think the game would work very well.
--Mats
(and now I've uploaded a bugfixed version)
2006-06-01	Joe Joyce Verified as Joe Joyce	None	
Hi, Mats. Shouldn't I at least get honorable mention on your Elk Chess
page for coming up with Elk Chess II? ;-) Joe
2006-06-01	Mats Winther Verified as Mats Winther	None	
Joe, no that does not qualify to be mentioned! But I am still not
convinced
that the notion of Elks together with Rooks works that well. What are the
Rooks supposed to do when the Elk takes control of an open file? They
can't oppose because the rook is worth more than the Elk. However, I
later found out that, thanks to Elks, one can play on the wings instead
and temporarily ignore the open files. So it's possible that this
variant
works anyway. Time will tell.
--Mats [end of quotes]
Quite a change in attitude in a very short period of time. Another quote:
2006-06-02	Mats Winther Verified as Mats Winther	None	
Joe, I don't know what got you upset. If it was the trivial idea of
replacing the knights with Elks, I had already investigated that before
you proposed it, and I had dismissed it, for reasons I already  told. But
when you proposed it again I investigated it again, and decided to add it
as a variant. [eoq]
If the variant is that trivial and you had already investigated and
dismissed it, why include it in your game? Especially without noting its
poorness? If it was worth including in the game, it was worth crediting.
You are trying to have it both ways. I object to that general attitude.
Further, you have changed your page to include references  and links to
everyone but me - thanks! That was a good laugh. (Seriously, I did laugh;
it reminded me so much of work.) That you went back and changed your pages
after I made my comments says something about the relative merits of our
positions. 
Here, I must apologize again. That I implied you gave no credit at all was
wrong and misleading. This is where I went over the top. You did, when you
became aware of their existance, name the games that contained the Squire.
I will state here that I do not remember any designers names associated
with the games you credited on your Mammoth Chess page when I looked at it
a few days ago. Again, I state this is wrong. 
Cavalier expropriation of ideas and a reluctance to credit either sources
or original creators coupled with a dismissive and condescending attitude
first made me seriously consider saying something. But, finally, it was
your dismissive and condescending statements toward others that prompted
me to respond. Telling Alfred Pfeiffer to, in effect, run along and stop
bothering you as you no longer have the time to bother with chess was what
got me irked enough to write. Mr. Pfeiffer wrote a nice expansion of your
initial idea, adding details that clearly could enhance the game. You
said:
2006-06-01	Mats Winther Verified as Mats Winther	None	
Alfred, I think I will have a break now. If you have a good game idea you
could always ask somebody at the Zillions site to implement it. Sometimes
they will.
--Mats [eoq]
Now run along home like a nice boy - not. I'm a New Yorker. I know when
I've been dissed, and when others have. I do not like to be in this
position, but, as it occurred in a public forum, I felt and still feel it
must be addressed publicly. In a forum like CV, all we have are our ideas
and our willingness to work. Everybody should be credited, no matter how
trivial the idea or how invisible the work. That everybody plays in good
faith should be a fundamental principle of this site. This is my main
position, and I have no hesitation in asking every member of this site to
weigh in on this question.
This post is already too long. While there is much more I wish to say, I
will sum up my 2 main points:
 I apologize for my improper emotional post, it should not have happened.
 Give credit where it is due, and it's due if you are aware, or should
be, of the existance of a reason to give it. 
Finally, I will say again that you are an excellent piece designer
(although I think you need to work a little on game design); and I'd much
rather we played nice together. 
 Joe Joyce

James Spratt wrote on Fri, Jun 2, 2006 08:46 PM UTC:
Well, y'know, we can all get hot sometimes about things we care about;
welcome to humanity.

Shucks, now I'll have to take back all the rotten things I said about you
to my cat.  That's so sad because it confuses him, and when he gets
confused he's hard to deal with; he already thinks I'm a sap. (smilie)

Joe Joyce wrote on Sat, Jun 3, 2006 01:27 AM UTC:
Thanks, James, for welcoming me to the human race. It means a lot to me; I
was a postal supervisor, and retired as an EAS17. You may be the first
person in decades to consider me human. I really appreciate this. ;-)
Please, don't tell the cat and confuse him! My wife is an animal lover
and I wouldn't want to upset her. And I'm allergic to cats anyway, so I
could probably deal with being hated by yours. So tell him we have 3 dogs
among the menagerie. This way he'll always feel justified. Enjoy. Joe

James Spratt wrote on Sat, Jun 3, 2006 02:13 AM UTC:
Hi, Joe; interesting, my brother's VOMA Greensboro, finishing out 30;
didn't want to go management because he likes his soul too much.
Kitty says he's allergic to you, too; three dogs! Fer shame..
Dogs have masters, cats have staff.
Hey, how 'bout a 'Postal Chess' variant?  Lessee, pieces are the
Inspector, Supervisor, Letter Carrier, Mailbox Lurker, Mean Dog and
Wild-Eyed-Laid-Off-Just-Divorced-Guy-With-An-AK.

Larry Smith wrote on Sat, Jun 3, 2006 05:07 AM UTC:
Wild-Eyed-Laid-Off-Just-Divorced-Guy-With-An-AK.

Hmmmmmmmm.

That's the piece that once it starts capturing, it keeps on capturing.
And it takes several pieces to capture it.

25 comments displayed

Earlier Reverse Order LaterLatest

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.