[ 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 Scout Chess. Introducing the Scout, combining queen-captures with Camelrider moves (zrf exists).[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating] MHowe wrote on 2007-03-02 UTCWow, someone remembers Biform Chess. The pieces were okay, and had the advantage that each one could force mate in a K + X vs. K endgame, but the game itself, if played from the orthodox array, was not a success because there was no good way to develop without early exchanges that robbed the game of depth. Push the pawns to the third rank and there might be an array that works. If I was rating my own Biform Chess today, as it stands I'd have to give at a 'poor'. Maybe I'll see if a new array can save it. David Paulowich wrote on 2007-03-02 UTCBERSERKER: moves like a rook, but captures like a normal chess queen. VALKYRIE: moves like a bishop, but captures like a normal chess queen. These pieces are found in Jason D. Wittman's Mad Chess [July 3, 2000]. In Michael Howe's Biform Chess Variants [September 15, 1997] the Rooks and Knights and Bishops have their standard noncapturing moves, but each piece captures using the standard moves of the other two pieces. Thus the KNIGHT captures like a standard Queen. Joe Joyce wrote on 2007-03-01 UTCYes, it does, but the board is so relatively [ahem!] small that the piece can only move twice. And it's still a camel in those 2 moves. Ah, but when it lands! Abdul-Rahman Sibahi wrote on 2007-03-01 UTCI understand this piece to move like a camel-rider, rather than camel. Joe Joyce wrote on 2007-03-01 UTCGood ★★★★Nice piece, very tricky. That it can change color is nice, because I've always found the camel to be a darn awkward piece to use. By the time I got this far in typing this, I found out you'd been anticipated, an all too common occurrence these days. [I saw Michael Howe's comment!] No matter, it's still a good idea, and I'll bet someone can anticipate Mr. Howe. There are a couple statements, one by each of you, that I'd like to discuss in a different spot. M. Howe: 'Leaping-riders can be awkward and unbalancing because of their ability to attack through pawn walls, but this is a good solution.' M. Winther: 'If anybody wants to study the characteristics of a certain type of new piece, how it affects the strategical situation, and what new tactical themes are introduced, then my conservative implementations are ideal.' Both these statements, I think, are worthy of further discussion, and I hope you gentlemen [and anyone else] will feel free to comment. 💡📝M Winther wrote on 2007-03-01 UTCI was also intrigued by this piece. It introduces a new theme. It can make a startling jump into the enemy lines, create threats, and then leap back again. Scout is a befitting name. If anybody wants to study the characteristics of a certain type of new piece, how it affects the strategical situation, and what new tactical themes are introduced, then my conservative implementations are ideal. There is really no reason why the name Scout cannot be re-used in other variants. Today, there exist so many variants that we must accept re-using names to some extent. Most of the variants will fall into oblivion anyway. /Mats MHowe wrote on 2007-03-01 UTCGood ★★★★The Scout is one of Mats Winther's most interesting recent creations. Leaping-riders can be awkward and unbalancing because of their ability to attack through pawn walls, but this is a good solution. I've had some thoughts along similar lines in the past and have been considering a knightrider-moving, king-capturing piece for Nova Chess, which I was thinking of calling Scout but which I will now call Pioneer. 7 comments displayedLater ⇩Reverse Order⇧ EarlierPermalink to the exact comments currently displayed.