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


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

Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

EarliestEarlier Reverse Order LaterLatest
The Game of Nemoroth. For the sake of your sanity, do not read this variant! (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
gnohmon wrote on Thu, Apr 18, 2002 10:47 AM UTC:
I had thought that evaporation of ichor could be treated as a saving move,
but

if it takes that much explanantion and clarification, it's not worth
allowing it.

Change not made yet pending your opinions.

John Lawson wrote on Fri, Apr 19, 2002 02:42 AM UTC:
Two topics remain: <p>Ichor - There is no problem with your ichor rules. The problem resided in my head. You should leave them as they are. (I was starting the ply count the half-turn after the Wounded Fiend moved.) <p>Leaf Piles - If you get into the head of a Leaf Pile, as described, there are only two different rules that make sense: <p>1) A Leaf Pile cannot voluntarily move onto any square that contains at least one mummy or statue, period. <p>2) A Leaf Pile can voluntarily move onto to a square that contains any number of mummies and statues, if and only if there is at least one other mobile piece to engulf. <p>I haven't played the game yet, so I don't know which to recommend.

gnohmon wrote on Fri, Apr 19, 2002 03:04 PM UTC:
Excellent feedback. 

'No problem with ichor rules' -- then I won't change.

'1) A Leaf Pile cannot voluntarily move onto any square that contains
   at least one mummy or statue, period.'

This was the original rule and I think it may be better to revert to it.

'2) A Leaf Pile can voluntarily move onto to a square that contains any
   number of mummies and statues, if and only if there is at least one
   other mobile piece to engulf.'

This is what I really wanted to change it to, but I hurried and messed it
up. However, I think it makes for a faster and more exciting game if
the mummy/statue confers temporary immunity (but very double-edged
because
the mobile piece is compelled to move off).

Leaf piles have no heads, so you can't get into its head. However, you
have comprehended its primordial nature.

gnohmon wrote on Mon, Apr 22, 2002 02:19 AM UTC:
I have attempted to incorporate everybody's comments into
http://www.panix.com/~gnohmon/nemofull.html
and I believe that it is now correct and can be regarded as the final
version.

Pay attention! there is a 'Credits' section at the end. If your name should
be there but is not, please correct me so that I can apologize in private
before final publication.

Moussambani wrote on Mon, Apr 22, 2002 09:21 AM UTC:
OK, I haven't yet played the game but I have some more questions about
compulsion (Hey, I like to bend the rules to see if they broke, a good
thing to do before final publication). The question revolves around pieces
that are compelled to move, and after moving they are still compelled, this
is legal (vg Alabaster Human on d3, Obsidian Ghast on d4. d3 is compelled,
but can flee to c3 or c4 and it's still compelled. Then to the b-file to
save itself. This is legal and I have no question about that). So the rule
I derive here is that a compelled move does not need to remove compulsion.
OK, Now add an Alabaster Ghast on b3 to the previous board (which
stalemates the Human) and an Alabaster Go Away on e2 (compelled by the
Obsidian Ghast). Alabaster can make his human go to c3 by screaming GO
AWAY! this is recorded as a saving move because it goes further away of the
Obsidian Ghast. It's not moving of it's own accord so it's legal that it
approaches his own Ghast. the Human can now move to b5 fleeing both Ghasts
and compulsion would be removed, and the Go Away has several flight squares
(this term is hugely adequate here). I see this new scenario is also legal
and reinforces the rule that a compelled move (or a saving move) does not
need to remove compulsion.
OK, with this in mind I present this new situation. Alabaster Go Away on b2
(this is a new board, the Ghasts are gone). Alabaster has a compelled piece
on b3 which is Ichorous. b4 is also Ichorous. Screaming is a saving move?
My logic says yes. Now remove the Ichor on the board, and make b3 a
multiple-ocupation square. Screaming now sends both pieces on b3 to b4
which becomes multiple-ocupation. Is this a saving move? I know it sounds
weird, but looking at the previous examples it should be!

And now some lighter comments: I first found a little weird that the Go
Away was the only piece who lost its Ability when petrified, but now I find
it a nice balancing act, as the Go Away is the richest piece, you don't
want it petrified. I don't know wether this was thought to happen or just
turned out that way. Granted, Human loses his Ability to promote, but I
consider this is not an innate Ability, just one that the Powers that Be
grant brave humans who reach the end zone. Now it makes me wonder what
happens if a Human moves to a Basilisk square in the last rank. Do the
Powers that Be reward his journey and make him a Zombie or would They be
very disapointed by this fumble entering the end zone and leave him a
statue? (to keep this football analogy I've now noticed I started, it's
only necessary that the ball [ie the Human] breaks the goal line plane [ie
the line separating 7th and 8th rank] when in possession [ie alive, not
petrified] for a touchdown [ie a Zombie] to be scored.) So football rules,
say that it's a Zombie, but this is not football. Zombie or Statue? and if
a Human is pushed onto an ichorous square in the last rank, is it an Alive
Zombie (Book of Oxymorons, #427) or a Self-Destruction?

Moussambani wrote on Mon, Apr 22, 2002 09:40 AM UTC:
I also thought of a notation. I put it on a new comment because it's a
totally different subject and the previous comment was getting long.

This system will be easy to learn because it's algebraic notation. (Go
Away's initial is A, since G is taken by the Ghast). a prefixed p means
'petrified'. pB is a petrified Basilisk and so on. A move that causes
compulsion is marked +, and a stalemating move is ++; some explanation can
come after that A move that causes some changes to a piece is explained
after an =, and x means 'engulfs' (note that only Lx is legal). For a
Zombie destroying something I'd use *, for example Z*d7. (This is the only
new symbol). A Go Away that screams is recorded as moving to its own square
(and possibly an = preceding the effects). The fool's mate you show in the
document would be scored this way.

1. Bd3=pHc2,pHe2 ; Gb6 2. Be5=pHd7,pHf7? ; Gd4=pGd4++d2! 0-1

Note I used a semi-colon to separate Alabaster and Obsidian moves, because
I think commas will be common in this game and it adds clarity. Any
thoughts?

John Lawson wrote on Mon, Apr 22, 2002 01:03 PM UTC:
Regarding notation, I had developed a scheme to use when playing via email.
 I have pasted the essence of it below.  I like the way Moussambani records
moves, but check out my scheme for tracking ichor on an ASCII diagram.

Nemoroth notation and ASCII diagrams                     ver.1.0


 Mobile piece symbols-
 
 Alabaster
 B - Basilisk
 G - Ghast
 L - Leaf Pile
 A - Go Away
 W - Wounded Fiend
 H - Human
 Z - Zombie
 
 Obsidian
 b - Basilisk
 g - Ghast
 l - Leaf Pile
 a - Go Away
 w - Wounded Fiend
 h - Human
 z - Zombie


 Immobile piece symbols-

 M - Mummy

 Alabaster
 pB - Petrified Basilisk
 pG - Petrified Ghast
 pL - Petrified Leaf Pile
 pA - Petrified Go Away
 pW - Petrified Wounded Fiend
 pH - Petrified Human
 
 Obsidian
 pb - Petrified Basilisk
 pg - Petrified Ghast
 pl - Petrified Leaf Pile
 pa - Petrified Go Away
 pw - Petrified Wounded Fiend
 ph - Petrified Human


 Square types-

 Empty squares - empty squares, no special notation needed 
 Ghastly squares - determined relative to Ghast, no special notation
needed
 Basilisk squares - determined relative to Basilisk, no special notation
needed
 Multiple occupancy squares - occupants are listed on the first two lines
of square.  There is room for six in each square of the diagram.
 Ichorous squares -  are denoted by an 'I' in the lower left corner,
followed by the number of plies remaining until ichor evaporates. In play,
when a Wounded Fiend moves, the player moving puts 'I 10' in the
appropriate squares.  Each turn, the player on move decrements the numBer
by 1 until it reaches 0 and the ichor has evaporated.
 
 Example -

   +------+
   | M wpb|
   |pH    |
   | I  6 |
   +------+
 This square contains:
  Mummy
  Obsidian Wounded Fiend
  Petrified Obsidian Basilisk
  Petrified Alabaster Human
  Ichor that will evaporate in six plies (three turns)


 Notating moves -

 This is done the normal way, except indicate petrification by Basilisk,
engulfment by Leaf Pile, or destruction by Zombie like captures.  When a Go
Away pushes pieces, just list the moves as if the pieces had moved
voluntarily.  Also indicate any petrification, engulfment, or destruction
as a result of the push.

John Lawson wrote on Tue, Apr 23, 2002 12:20 AM UTC:
In response to Moussambani's earlier post, I agree that the situations you
desribe in the first paragraph regarding the Go Away are legal, but your
examples are flawed in that you don't have the pieces compelled to go away
move one square directly away from the Go Away.  The rule definately says
this:
Instead of moving, [the Go Away] can scream GO AWAY! and all adjacent
pieces, whether friend or foe, whether mobile or immobile, are pushed one
square directly away from it. 

Regarding the interpretation of Human promotion in the second paragraph,
gnohmon will have to say for sure, but it seems to me that a Human that
arrives on the last rank is promoted to Zombie immediately, and then what
ever the resulting interactions are take place, be they immunity to
petrification or destruction by ichor.  This is similar in concept to a
Leaf Pile engulfing an adjacent Ghast as a saving move.

gnohmon wrote on Tue, Apr 23, 2002 02:30 AM UTC:
Dear Moussambani,

1. Human d3 Ghast d4, moving d3-c4 does not increase the distance and is
not satisfy the obligation to flee. Moving to c3 is okay and is still
compelled to flee further next move, as you say.

2. Obsidian Ghast d4, Alabaster Ghast b3 and human d3 and Go Away e2; Go
Away cannot scream, no distances are increased by pushing d3 to c4. Best
move maybe Ae2-g2, and then the Gd4 should be compelled to run away from
the one at b3.

The concept is that moving human from d3 to c3 increases distance and
therefore satisfies the compulsion even though additional flight will be
required, via b3 or b4 to a3 or a4 or a5.

3. Human moves to Basilisk square on last rank. Oh, that's a good one! I
didn't think of that, you have tricked me with my own rules!

A petrified Human, if pushed to the 8th rank, does not promote to a
petrified Zombie; this is an exception to the general case of pushing
petrified pieces. There is no such thing as a petrified Zombie in the rules
as they are now. What if pushing a petrified Human to 8th rank promoted it
to unpetrifiable (and therefore unpetrified and undead) Zombie? This would
keep the rules more consistent and render your question moot (whether
promote firet or petrify first, you get an unpetrified Zombie) and I think
it would almost never happen so it would not unbalance the play of the
game.

I'll have to think about this before doing anything as radical as that.

4. Human pushed to ichorous 8th rank square; promoted, destroyed. Life is
often cruel in Nemoroth.

John Lawson wrote on Tue, Apr 23, 2002 04:57 AM UTC:
How is 'Nemoroth' pronounced? Normal (American) English pronunciation patterns would lead to a stressed first syllable with a long vowel, secondary stress on the third syllable, and a schwa for the middle vowel, but there are other, equally valid, alternatives.

Peter Aronson wrote on Tue, Apr 23, 2002 05:39 AM UTC:
You <strong><em>don't</em></strong> want to pronounce Nemoroth correctly. You really don't. But if you must, <i>do not pronounce that dread name in a room with any corners!</i> But I'm probably worrying about nothing. <br> <br> <br> Heh.

John Lawson wrote on Tue, Apr 23, 2002 05:49 AM UTC:
I haven't read a Lovecraft story in 35 years, but that stirs my memory. Could it be the Hounds of Tindalos?

Moussambani wrote on Tue, Apr 23, 2002 01:10 PM UTC:
Oh, my bad. The obsidian Ghast was supposed to be at e4 in my previous analysis.

Peter Aronson wrote on Tue, Apr 23, 2002 03:24 PM UTC:
Good memory, John! 'The Hounds of Tindalos' (which was by Frank Belknap Long, one of the Lovecraft circle) was exactly what I was referencing. <p> I've been listening to Ruddigore in my car of late (my interest in it being stirred up again by recent conversations here), and I now somehow associate The Game of Nemoroth with <a href='http://math.boisestate.edu/gas/ruddigore/html/night_wind_howls.html'>'When the Night Wind Howls'</a>.

Moussambani wrote on Tue, Apr 23, 2002 07:54 PM UTC:
<p>Just some more nit-picky (sp?) details... <p>'no mobile piece except a Zombie may move of its own accord to a Ghast Square' Should be 'no mobile piece except a Zombie may move of its own accord to a Ghast Square, <i>Except when fleeing that Ghast</i>'. That is, flight inside the Ghast range is allowed. This is well understood, it's just a matter of wording. <p>And when you say 'When a Leaf Pile makes its first voluntary move after engulfing something, it leaves behind a single Mummy', does pushing a Leaf Pile cut its digestion? Example: A Leaf Pile engulfs something, then it's pushed thrice by some Go Aways strategically situated. Finally, the Leaf Pile moves voluntarily. Do we have a new Mummy? <p>There's a typo in the 3rd paragraph of the Go Away section. 'this is only important whan a Basilisk is involved' should be 'this is only important <i>when</i> a Basilisk is involved'. <p>In Azgoroth's puzzle, you forget to mention square h1. which makes the squares you mention afterwards wrong. It should be rewritten, but maybe it's easier to say that the Fiend starts at a8 and his first move is a8-h8. <p>(BTW, aren't any records of games played by Azgoroth? What happened to them?) <p>That's all the things I found. I had fun proof-reading the rules.

gnohmon wrote on Wed, Apr 24, 2002 02:53 AM UTC:
Moussambani makes some details and then points out a dreadful 
error in Azgoroth's Simple Puzzle. 
Does this change the result of the puzzle? I begin to wonder about 
the Curse of Nemoroth. I carefully count on my barely adequate 
digits. No, is is still stalemate. 
I thank Moussambani for the other detailed corrections and also 
for the small (what a relief!) correction to the minor typo in the 
simple puzzle. 
There are no records of Azgoroth's games. He had them published on 
scrolls made of the cheapest grade of something-skin so that they 
would soon deteriorate and replacement copies be purchased.

gnohmon wrote on Wed, Apr 24, 2002 03:12 AM UTC:
Nemoroth in its prime was not truly a place of Lovecraftian horror,
although life there could be cruel. It was an innocent unthinking cruelty,
as of children, not the deeply evil cruelty of the unspeakably ancient
Powers that the few survivors of Nemoroth eventually became.

'We spectres are a jollier crew than you perhaps suppose' is, however, a
much too disneyfied interpretation of what the place was like.

At least, that's how I see it; of course, pronouncing the place name
correctly just might draw the attention of one of its survivors, and
therefore is not advisable.

In the Lovecraftian ethos, evil and ancientness are often paired, and so my
picture of the young city of Nemoroth, innocently cruel, wielding great
powers beyond our understanding, but not yet grown to full and mature evil,
seems to me to be consistent with Lovecraft.

In our days, faceless and intangible incorporeal Corporations use invisible
forces to manipulate 'electrons' that form images and symbols on television
screens, images and symbols which cast a spell compelling their viewers to
buy! buy! buy!; and therefore we have modern referents that make the Powers
of ancient times seem to us to be not so strange after all.

In defense of Ruddigore, I will say that any excuse to have its excellent
words and music repeating in one's mind is quite good enough. And, after
all, if a man can't listen to Ruddigore in his own head, whose head can
he...

Peter Aronson wrote on Wed, Apr 24, 2002 03:03 PM UTC:
Gnohmon, 'When the Night Winds Howl' wasn't a rational selection to match Nemoroth, but rather an association made somewhere in the depths of my subconscious. And the instrumental component would work well enough.

gnohmon wrote on Wed, Apr 24, 2002 03:27 PM UTC:
Speaking of disneyfied images moving on a screen, 'Pennies from Heaven',
Columbia Pictures 1936, ''A romantic comedy starring Bing Crosby which
features Louis Armstrong and his Orchestra in a nightclub sequence
performing 'Skeleton in the Closet'...
(www.loc.gov/rr/mopic/jazz/o-r.html)

You never heard such unearthly laughter, such hilarious moans, when the
skeleton in the closet rattled his bones (from memory)

When the skeleton in the closet started to dance makes a far less
appropriate song for Nemoroth than the gosts' high noon.

There is always that violin valse macabre that the classical radio stations
play on Halloween...

John Lawson wrote on Wed, Apr 24, 2002 04:59 PM UTC:
Do you mean 'Danse Macabre', by Saint-Saens? There's also something like that I can't quite remember in his 'Carnival of the Animals'.

gnohmon wrote on Thu, Apr 25, 2002 01:26 AM UTC:
> Do you mean 'Danse Macabre' ...

Perhaps. It's the one that goes da DAAA da Daaaa da daaa da daaa da
dadadadadadadun dun dun, right?

John Lawson wrote on Thu, Apr 25, 2002 01:44 AM UTC:
Yes, that's it!

John Lawson wrote on Thu, Apr 25, 2002 01:46 AM UTC:
Actually, it's here.
http://fathom.org/opalcat/midi.html

John Lawson wrote on Thu, Apr 25, 2002 05:09 AM UTC:
This is the other Saint-Saens piece I was thinking of.  It is Carnival of
the Animals, Fossils.  The link takes you directly to the midi file.
http://www.geocities.com/lavendermist_lmg/midis/Classical/fossili.mid

Moussambani wrote on Fri, Apr 26, 2002 09:26 AM UTC:
OK, who of you asked for the wrong furniture?

PS: If you don't know what I'm talking about, then it's not you.

25 comments displayed

EarliestEarlier Reverse Order LaterLatest

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.