[ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments by Freederick
I did not originate this item. It has been attributed to me in error.
This is very odd. I did NOT author Dynasty Chess---I'm afraid that either mistakes were made, or my account has been compromised. BTW, I find this variant rather unremarkable.
The equal-armies version seems very interesting, thanks. I'll try to implement it. You are incorrect, however, about the shamans; they move *either* one or two squares (F2W2 as opposed to AD) and consequently can very well attack each other. They cannot be made colorbound without seriously impairing their ability to attack the Elephant. I'm beginning to think the t[NN] variant of the shaman is more interesting anyway, and I'll be posting that variant as soon as I work out all the bugs.
Where are the Pushme-pullyus that supposedly were introduced in this game? I read the description of all the 'Super-Terminators' and stuff, and none of them move as the Pushme-pullyu. Is this 'Supremo Superchess' really the same as the 'Supremo' invented by Fergus Duniho? It sure doesn't have the look and feel of his other designs. Why is some other guy credited with inventing this variant? Where is the real Supremo? %-/
I'd like to suggest 'a' for approach capture, and 'w' for withdrawal capture. These letters are not yet used, and they would facilitate describing Ultima-like pieces, which cannot be notated without this addition.
From the description of the goals of the individual players: 'For the two Foreigns, the goal is to capture the other country's king, while the goal of the Peacekeeper is to capture the two Foreign kings', I do not see why the peacekeeping force should include a king at all. It is not necessary for the resolution of the game. Also, the author did not specify what happens when the Peacekeeper captures its first king; let's say they captured the Red king. Game is not over: at this point it is still possible for the Peacekeepers to win. But it is no longer possible for Black to win, even though they still have a king standing! On the other hand, it is still possible for Red to win -- by capturing the Black king before the Peacekeepers get to it. Somehow, this doesn't make sense. Third, once a king (say, the Red king) is eliminated, can Red continue playing? If not, then it's no longer possible for anyone but the Peacekeepers to win. This practically reduces the winning condition for the Peacekeepers to capturing one king -- but then there is no call for making the forces uneven. Furthermore, the author does not specify what happens to the eliminated player's pieces -- are they removed from the board? Do they pass to the victor? On the other hand, if Red can continue playing kingless, it leads to the paradox outlined above.
7 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.