Comments by nelk114

Indeed, it seems that either the knight's verbal description or its XBetza move has been exchanged with the one in the Modern game.

@Aurelian?

Indeed, that was my impression from his book as well; I'd initially missed the detail of how recent this variant was and had assumed it significantly older (and I don't trust people to count like we do today(!)).

I enjoyed the other papers you posted here and look forward to reading this one too

Apparently I forgot to add the link to the XBetza page in my previous comment; I've now added it there.

yafsF is indeed the sliding part. a is as you've found, ‘again’; fs for w's and F's is interpreted as for a king, so for an F it changes to a W direction — and ‘forward’ for anything but the first part of the move is interpreted as ‘outward’ (like Alfonso about the rhinoceros); y is a ‘range toggle’ i.e. it switches from being a leaper/stepper to being a slider. Thus, yafsF is one step diagonally followed by a 45° turn and sliding orthogonally.

Complexity is in the eye of the beholder. It's not immediately obvious (especially compared to t[FR]) but it's apperntly easier to describe to a computer (and easier to generalise), which for the interactive diagrams is a definite plus

Ok, having actually gone to find a copy online, I agree that Tressau specifies the Kb/j–Rc/i castle; in principle one could still object that the example games may not be played by the original rules (while he says they're real, rather than constructed, games, it could still be under the influence of a misunderstanding), but it seems upon a cursory reading that for the Sultan's Game in particular his book may in fact be the original source? The Emperors Game is cited in the Spielarchiv, but Tressau explicitly notes (p.80) that a game with a Marshal had been suggested there but not described, rather being rejected due to the necessary odd number of files being unwieldy (in particular due to either same‐colour bishops or transposition of one bishop but not the other with its adjacent knight).

Unfortunately a quick search for the Archiv der Spiele online appears entirely fruitless so I can't confirm that…

The dragon is indeed a t[FR], in Betza's original notation. However, that part of it was never documented on the Betza Notation page (instead languishing on the Chess on a Really Big Board page, though it turns up elsewhere too), and is arguably a little underspecified, so H. G.'s XBetza (which is what the interactive diagram uses) specifies such multi‐leg moves in its own way. In this extension, FyafsF is indeed equivalent to the original t[FR]

The vulture afaict is mainly a longer‐range relative of George Duke's (and more recently Uli Schwekendiek's) Falcon, whose advantage over the bison (from a game design perspective) is its blockability — presumably the same is sought here. Unfortunately, due to the multiple paths to a given destination, it is quite complex to describe. Idk about the extra knight move though, that's perhaps a little gratuitous (presumably to make up for the basic vutlre's lack of maneuverability?)

I agree the birds are quite complex, if potentially interesting to play with? And whether the knight/elephant enhancements are truly necessary may be worth a playtest as well

Originally posted on Pemba, where this piece is called a Crocodile.

I assume JL means this one? His page includes it thrice: that ‘close‐up’ at the beginning of the Rules section, the full page featuring it after the list of volumes in Alfonso's book, and a reproduction on a commemorative stamp at the end of the page

Is that Tressau's interpretation? And do we know how much info the original sourcs gives on the matter?

After all if the latter does specify, as this article does, that both pieces move four spaces each, the Kc/i–Rd/h interpretation would make sense both in terms of preserving usual castling and lining up with the frequent use of inclusive counting (see also paragraph 4 of the Comments in Cazaux' page on Grant Acedrex)

On the other hand, with an initial leap the blocking would only be on a single diagonal, rather than having to check the nearby orthogonal squares as well. A tradeoff really, though in any case due to the ability to avoid nearby blocking pieces the t[HB] is probably too powerful (or, on small enough boards, too awkward) to use in (most?) games anyway.

I believe this page to now be ready for publication

The difficulty with viewing e.g. the 2.griffin/running ostrich as R2‐then‐B is that the obvious reading of that (in line with the obvious reading of full ‘rook then bishop’ — see also the large shogis' ‘rook‐then‐rook’ and ‘bishop‐then‐bishop’ hook movers) suggests that it could also make the Bishop move after only a single Wazir step, becoming effectively a compound of griffon and ostrich — what Gilman called a Fimbriated griffon (after a kind of outline in heraldry). Which is really quite powerful and not what either of us means afaict.

My view here is that the usual Ostrich (and Osprey) have a move along a given path, but the shortest of its moves is two steps — something it has in common with Tamerlane's picket, Alfonso X's unicorn, and indeed Shatranj's and Xiàng Qí's elephant. For the picket and elephant, the 2‐step move is non‐coprime, and so a one‐step move can be trivially interpolated: for the former this gives the familiar Bishop, while the latter gave a piece that was dubbed the ‘modern’ elephant (and of course with a modern dabbaba to match). For the unicorn it is less trivial (the knight has two possible interpolations) but extending the long‐range move backwards suggests orthogonal‐then‐diagonal over the alternative, giving our Manticore.

In the Osprey's and Ostrich's case, the 2‐step shortest move, as with the picket and elephant, is non‐coprime, and so the obvious interpolation lines up with your 2.bent riders. In the Osprey's case, the alternative exists of doing as with the unicorn and extending backwards, giving a ferz‐then‐bishop‐at‐90°, but fsr 90° turns seem (above‐mentioned hook movers notwithstanding) to be less favoured.

I don't disagree about blockability: what I have termed ‘running’, as opposed to the preëxisting ‘modern’, is explicitly blockable — though arguably calling them ‘lame/stepping modern’ os[prey/triche]s is just as descriptive. Fergus' helical pieces also differ from Charles' Proselyte ⁊c in being (by default) blockable, as well as interpolating.

As for 3‐or‐more.gryphons/manticores, it might indeed be interesting to have names for those (though they might begin to veer into being a little too exotic?), but it'd be equally useful imo to have names for the equally unusual threeleaper‐then‐bishop or quibbler‐then‐rook.

Are there any plans to restore this functionality? Not sure whether the ongoing procedures with backups ⁊c make this a more or less opportune time to look into this, so if the latter it can ofc wait, but it'd be good to have it back eventually

when playing the game one is generally attempting to achieve a particular double

Perhaps, but if that's what you meant it might be worth being clearer about that; the way it's phrased aþm suggests that the probability of being able to make any Séj‐dice capturing move (assuming availability of pieces to capture) is 1∕3+1∕36=13∕36, which doesn't really make sense (not least, that'd be likelier than merely being able to move even if the 1∕3 figure were correct). The actual probability is in fact, as dax00 said, 11∕36(=chance of matching the last piece to move)×1∕6(=chance of a double)=11∕216. The chance of any given piece being able to capture is 1∕6 of that again, i.e. 11∕1296.

since the fraction 11∕36 is almost a third, doesn't that in effect equate to 1∕3?

Well 1∕3=12∕36, so… no? It's close, sure, but still an 8.33% difference — if you consider that trivial enough to be discounted fine, but don't expect everyone (especially those of us with a mathematical inclination) to agree.

There is a 66.6% chance that, because each turn the dice MUST match the opponent's piece, thence the game will continue as regular Classical Chess

I also just noticed this remark; even aside from the percentage being wrong — the chance that a given turn will be ‘normal’ is 25∕36=69.44% — it's not clear whether you mean that to apply only to each turn, or (incorrectly) to the whole game. After 2 turns the likelihood of still having a normal game is 25∕36×25∕36=625∕1296 (less than 1∕2) and it keeps going down from there. Having a full game of Séj where the dice do not once allow a deviation from ‘classical’ chess is vanishingly unlikely.

the players start with […] a queen and a king and 8 pawns on their secind rank

All standard chess pieces except the king

The king isn't royal

These statements contradict each other. How can the player start with a king that's not in the game, and how can said king be non‐royal?

Also the rules regarding pawns are a bit unclear — am I right in inferring that a pawn effectively demotes upon reaching the last rank while adding a new ‘pawn’ (which can still move as a queen) into the pocket? thereby making the pawns a potentially infinite source of new pieces?

It looks as if it might mean bringing one's king to a space adjacent to the opponent's)? Would be not unlike Bachelor Chess (and a number of Gilman's) in that respect. Hence the commment about kings meeting on “their” — i.e. ‘one's own’ — half of the board, the case of 4th/5th ranks, and the note about “approaching” the opposing king.

Also the fifth paragraph remains given twice

Back‐of‐the‐envelope translation:

este ajedrez tiene un tablero modificado de 73 casillas .

This chess [variant] has a modified board of 73 squares.

las piezas adicionales a las convencionales son :

The pieces in addition to the conventional ones are:

un canciller : torre + caballo .

A Chancellor: Rook+Knight

el omega que mueve dos en diagonal y salta a la segunda casilla en diagonal ademas ,puede saltar a la 2da. casilla en ortogonal con una pieza de por medio.

The Omega which moves 2 diagonally and jumps to the seconddiagonal square; additionally it can jump to the 2nd square orthogonally with a piece in between.

los peones se llaman columnas y pueden tambien mover una casilla en diagonal hacia atras en ambas direcciones si estas estan desocupadas.

Pawns are called Columns and can also move one square diagonally backwards in either direction if these are vacant

el rey es un Emperador : rey + caballo .

The king is an Emperor: King+Knight

reglas especiales :

Special Rules:

_se mueven dos fichas por turno pero solo se puede comer una vez por turno.

• Two pieces are moved per turn but only one capture may be made per turn

_una ficha no se puede mover dos veces en un solo turno..

• A piece cannot move twice in one turn

_por cada 4 piezas que un bando atrape obliga en el siguiente turno de su adversario a que reinicie una de las piezas que haya capturado como aliada.

• For every four pieces captures by a side, his opponent is obliged on his next turn to reintroduce one of the pieces he has captured on his side

_las piezas iniciadas comienzan en cualquier casilla de la 1era. fila de su bando.

• [Re‐]introduced pieces begin on any square on the 1st file of their side

_cuando un rey está en jaque puede salir de un mate intercambiando 2 piezas de jerarquia () por un cambio de posición hacia una casilla que esté libre. (es opcional).

• When a king [i.e. an emperor?] is in check he can escape mate by exchanging two pieces of hierarchy () [sic] for a change of position to an empty space (this is optional)

_el atacante escoge una pieza y la inicia como aliada , el atacado escoge la otra pieza..

• The attacker chooses a piece and introduces it on his side; the attackee selects the other piece

As to the “two” corner squares, removing two squares from each corner of a 9×9 board does in fact leave 73 squares, though whether the second square is vertically or horizontally adjacent to the square in the corner remains unclear. Presumably the promised diagram will clarify.

The chance of rolling a double is 1/36. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/32313428/understanding-the-probability-of-a-double-six-if-i-roll-two-dice

The chance of rolling any given double (e.g., as in your link, a double 6) is indeed 1∕36. There are, however, six doubles to choose from, so the total probability is in fact 1∕6 of rolling any double.

The chance of rolling a single is 1/6 ⁓ but two dice thence double the likelihood of instances to 1/3

Alas, adding probabilities does not work that way. In effect you've counted the outcome of a double twice. The chance of rolling at least one of a given number with 2 dice is, in fact, 1−(1−1∕6)²=11∕36.

x is already taken sadly (for move‐relayers that ‘eXcite’ other pieces). Afaict the only (ASCII — I'd wager few would support using þ, ß, ⱶ, ⁊c.) letters that aren't yet used in XBetza are t and w — of which the former had a meaning for Betza himself (though iirc the article he introduces it in also features incompatible meanings for a number of other letters). w as a prefix (to ‘widen’ the available options?) sounds plausible I think

Ok so you are indeed including the 1‐step move among the movement possibilities — I suppose your ‘2.manticore’ is different enough from a lame/stepping/blockable osprey/lama (and mutatis mutandis for the ‘2.gryphon’) to merit a different name… maybe. If it's not being distinguished from a ‘true’ osprey/zephyr in a single game I'd be tempted to leave that name as is, though avoiding going too near overlexicalisation is a personal preference.

If the distinction does need to be made within a game (at which point the tradeoff changes imo), then ‘2.manticore’(/‘2.griffon’) is probably fine, if perhaps closer to the (presumably also present in a game featuring both of these) actual manticore/griffin than might be desirable, though I'm not really one to ask for original name suggestions (and M&B13 is apparently lacking names for lama/rook and zephyr/bishop compound with which we could (ab)use M&B8's ‘‐lander’ suffix). Perhaps a name based on lama/zephyr/osprey/ostrich/whatever you want to call them would be more apt? ‘Running Osprey’ isn't altogether without a ring to it…

The Princess' diagram disagrees with the text in omitting sideways moves

Charles Gilman called these Zephyr and Lama respectively, though by his description they cannot make the one‐step move that I'm not sure whether you're including. The latter also turns up as an Osprey in Expanded Chess