Comments by TonyQuintanilla

Very nice game. It is highly playable. Very enjoyable. The double teams
interact in a cooperative way. The board is interesting to play on,
especially with the center squares which change your piece types.
   Although the game harkens back to Chaturanga, even the 4-player version
of Chaturanga, and other 4-player games, there is a lot on ingenuity here.
The idea of changing piece type in the center adds some of the ancient
flavor too. The double team environment in-itself adds a new element in
many ways.
   The rules are simple to grasp. Traditional chess moves are used, along
with the ancient moves in the center. The center, of course, alludes to the
traditional struggle in chess to capture the center.
The game is very nice. By that I mean that it is graceful and evocative.
   Nice game. Try it!

I usually think of the game first and then try the Zillions implementation.
The result is, sometimes, that the Zillions implementation is unwieldy. It
is true, though, that some I have not even tried to implement. 

There is a great alternative, and that is our very own (thanks to Fergus)
play-by-e-mail system which is available to any square or hex board design,
requiring enforcement of the rules by the players--like a table-top chess
set. 

As far as 'mentally' creating games. Yes, when the game idea is very
interesting, I find myself mulling over it and the game design works itself
out conceptually--to a large degree, however, not completely. There are
some details of playability that only work themselves out in playtesting.


Zillions is a great way to work out the playability of a game, at least as
a first step. One pitfall that Zillions has is that the farther a game is
from orthochess the poorer the Zillions engine plays the game. Some games,
it plays very poorly, some in a skewed way, some extremely well.
Ultimately, play against a person is best for testing. 

If one is interested in play by e-mail, a Zillions implementation can be as
basic as a board and pieces that can move on it, without full rules
enforcement--this liberates many of the programming restrictions--since it
does not matter how well Zillions itself plays the game.

Back to the orginal question: I have found that in some practical ways,
Zillions does 'suggest' the development of a game because of the
programming practicalities. But I would not say that it inhibits ideas
altogether. There is one game I would like to try but have not found a way
to play by e-mail: Star Trek 3-D Chess (the 'real' one with the shifting
boards!) Any ideas?

Chess with Different Armies is certainly a very enjoyable set of games. I
particularly liked playing the Remarkable Rookies, perhaps because of their
mutually supportive and jumping capabilities. On the other hand, I had a
much more difficult time with the Colorbound Clobberers. Before I knew it,
I had trapped myself in an off-balance position. 

The overall idea of CWDA is very clever. The idea of balanced, yet
different, armies should see more use in Chess variants development. But,
as remarked by Ralph, this is not so simple and takes quite a bit of work.
On the other hand, it has endless possibilities with a simple theme. One
thought, would it be possible for players to 'assemble' an army from
'equivalent' sets?

Something else, there is a playful character to the armies, which is a nice
touch.

Very interesting game. I hope to try it out soon. The idea that assuming a
capturing posture is in effect part of the movement of a piece is
fascinating. 

A suggestion for a table-set: for a capturing posture, place the piece
slightly over the edge of the square towards which it is oriented. For
orientation of a piece, locate the piece just within the edge of the
square towards which it is oriented.

Regarding Ralph's aspirations to create a Chess variant that feels like
Go, one that is primarily intuitive, that would be great--although I
cannot claim to understand master level Chess thought. Kids play
intuitively, until they get 'spoiled' by reading Chess books! Intuitive
play is definitely more fun. I read that Capablanca played intuitively (I
guess he could get away with it because he was so brilliant), but that was
part of his downfall when he encountered players that studied a great
deal. In fact, part of the appeal of Chess variants is that they keep us
guessing. I have to say, though, that Zillions spoils the fun a little by
making it quite easy to study new games.

Wonderful idea! As far as the timing, either the 3 days per move or the
total day limit idea would work, I think. Total days used could be tracked
manually with each PBEM exchange. As far as a list of games, here's some
ideas:
- Chaturanga (worthy grandad of Chess)
- Jumping Chess (interesting capturing mechanic)
- Glinski's Hexagonal Chess (hex mechanics)
- Makruk (wonderful old and contemporary variant)
- Take Over Chess (I'm partial to it!)
- Chess on a Longer Board (its that Wall)
- Xiangqi (another worthy variant)
- Mulligan Stew Chess (crazy but fun)

I would suggest that with the anniversary of 9-11 tomorrow that--although
perhaps in a small way--Chess is a point of sanity in this world, a world
much in need of this. Remember the candle?

Great question! The answer is, yes! In the Middle Ages, in parts of Europe,
during the evolution of Shatranj to modern Chess, many people gave the
Queen the ability to also move as a Knight (I don't know about it not
leaping though). This type of Queen is now known as the Amazon and this
variant as Amazon Chess. See the following page on this site: 
 http://www.chessvariants.com/diffmove.dir/amazone.html
For specific information about the Amazon and both old and new variants
that use this piece, see the following page on this site:
 http://www.chessvariants.com/piececlopedia.dir/amazon.html

Phil, thanks for your questions:

1. What are the rules for creating/dropping Proto-dragons? Is there a
limit to the number that a player can create during the game, or can be
on
the board at one time? A: That's an omission. Proto-Dragons are dropped on
any empty hex during a player's turn. Up to 20 can be dropped per side.

2. What effect do the 'Lion' spaces (holes in the board) have on the
movement of Rocs? Are they allowed to pass over them? I would imagine,
given the very limited movement of the Rocs, that they could be severly
restricted if not allowed to 'fly' over them. A: The non-hexes may not be
landed upon, but otherwise do not affect movement.

3. Should the outer movement of the Dragon, out 2 spaces then 1 left or
right, be considered a jumping move? That is, the intervening spaces can
be occupied and not block movement? The diagram seems to indicate this. A:
Yes, its a jumping move.

4. According to the description, a Fireball can move up to 4 spaces
before
the opponent gets their move. ('Upon being shot off it moves two hexes.'
and 'If the Fireball is not removed for one of the above reasons, it is
moved in the direction it started two hexes between the White and Black
turns.') Is this correct? Also, 'Shot off by the Wizard' means it starts
in the Wizard's hex? Is there a limit to the number of Fireballs on the
board or created by a Wizard during the game? A: Yes, the Fireball starts
in the Wizard's hex, then moves 2 hexes. Then it moves one hex between the
White/Black moves and another hex between the Black/White moves. So
actually it only moves 2 hexes before the opponent gets their move upon
being shot off. After that, it only moves 1 hex before the opponent gets
their move. The Wizard can shoot an unlimited number of Fireballs during a
game.

Using the non-hexes as a handicapping factor is an interesting idea.
Thanks. Regarding how Chess-like the game is, that's for you to decide!