Check out Alice Chess, our featured variant for June, 2024.


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

Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Later Reverse Order Earlier
Leap Chess. Game with mandatory captures and other Checkers-like elements on a board of 44 squares. (6x8, Cells: 44) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Andy Maxson wrote on Tue, Feb 20, 2007 10:48 PM UTC:Good ★★★★
I am actually working on a variant like this called leapers chess which replaces rooks with wooden rooks, bishops with wooden bishops, and the queen with a centaur which moves as a nonroyal king or as a knight. I am actually writing an entry for it right now!

Charles Gilman wrote on Mon, Oct 25, 2004 08:03 AM UTC:
A further development of this variant would be a 'Great Leap Chess' with the 'missing squares' a1, f1, a8, f8 added in, occupied by Carpenters (Knight+Dabbaba, from my Avon) and Kangaroos (Knight+Elephant, from Timothy Newton's Outback Chess).

Charles Gilman wrote on Mon, Mar 15, 2004 01:54 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
Good use of the standard physical pieces - unorthodox but easy to remember. For the Bishop it is a return to the original, and in some opinions for the Rook too. I have myself submitted (not to the contest, just to the pages) a variant with Leap in its name. The name was devised independently of this one, but is was this page that drew my attention to the particular suitability for this year, so thanks for that.

Peter Aronson wrote on Fri, Jan 23, 2004 06:25 PM UTC:
Thanks for pointing that out Michael -- it's fixed now.

Peter Aronson wrote on Fri, Jan 23, 2004 03:25 PM UTC:
Page updated!

💡📝Ken Franklin wrote on Fri, Jan 23, 2004 06:46 AM UTC:
Apologies for the Confusion:
Indeed, I made an error between what I did, and what I described.  After a
brief consideration, I have decided to go with what I did - the original
game file.  
I have renamed the Bishop & Rook to the already established Alfil
(elephant) and Dabbaba.  For the Queen, I wasn't comfortable with the
names 'Alibaba or Spider'.  I required a universal piece name which
could indicate importance, power, swift mobility, and possibly be female
in description.  So I named the  piece: 'Sail' - traditionally, ships
are referred to in female terms.

An update (v 1.1) has been sent.

Peter Aronson wrote on Thu, Jan 22, 2004 11:10 PM UTC:
Er, sorry to disagree Ken, but look at your slide macros again. They all start with ($1 $1, which is a move of two squares. As currently implemented, there is no way for a sliding piece to move a single square. <p> Also, it's still a bit unclear to me what's intended with the slide moves, but I, think, from your latest statement a sliding piece can make one of the following three moves in a legal direction: <ul> <li>A non-capturing single step; <li>A non-capturing leap of two squares; <li>A capturing leap of two squares. </ul> Is that correct? If that's the case, then nt-slide for example ought to be something like: <blockquote><pre> (define nt-slide ( $1 (if empty? add) $1 (verify empty?) add )) </pre></blockquote>

💡📝Ken Franklin wrote on Thu, Jan 22, 2004 10:53 PM UTC:
Peter's piece comments re Alfils, etc is half right.  That's one way
the pieces move.  It is also the only way those pieces may capture! 
But... Bishops, Rooks, and Queens may also move into one adjacent space
when it's empty.  Therefore, it is not a coding bug.

  Also the win-conditions (captured King) come into effect with the
accompanying variants featuring multiple captures.  In these cases,
Zillions was not recognizing a checkmate via indirect capturing
movements.
  One factor that can be confusing is an announced checkmate when
(apparently) the defending King can either move out of the way or the
attacking piece could be taken.  Remember that capturing moves have a
mandatory priority (including before defense of a Check).

Peter Aronson wrote on Thu, Jan 22, 2004 06:51 PM UTC:
There seems to be a disagreement between the ZRF and readme's included in the ZIP archive's text (from the combination of which the page was generated), and the actual ZRF coding, but upon closer examination the language, while confusing -- 'pieces move by sliding one empty square or by leaping two squares in their normal direction' -- was probably meant to indicate that Bishops were Alfils, Rooks Dabbabahs and Queens Alibabbas. <p> Ken, could you enlighten us on this?

Roberto Lavieri wrote on Thu, Jan 22, 2004 06:09 PM UTC:Good ★★★★
Is there a little bug in the ZRF with the one-step slide movement-?. If so, it is not difficult fixing it.

10 comments displayed

Later Reverse Order Earlier

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.