Ratings & Comments

gnohmon, you're wrong about a few things. first of all,
while black rooks can control double files if they are on the
a,b,g, or h files, a white rook on the b-file would control
both the a-file and b-file, and likewise a white rook on the 
g-file controls both the g-file and h-file. Download the ZRF
and you'll see. 

Bishops may seem weak but they may yet have a purpose in the game.
It may be true that their ability to penetrate the other side of
the board and attack is more difficult, but they'll still be
pretty good as stay-at-home defenders. Note however that white
bishops at a3 or h3 control very long diagonals (bishop at a3 
attacks e8, bishop at h3 attacks d8)

and while black may be able to control the outside files with
his rooks faster, white should be able to occupy the escalator
squares more quickly. In order that white does not get an overwhelming
advantage in the game, I gave black the first move. Time will tell
if the game is balanced sufficiently or not.


Incidentally, if anyone who has ZILLIONS OF GAMES would like to
play either SLANTED ESCALATOR CHESS, or SPINAL TAP CHESS

http://www.chessvariants.com/large.dir/spinal-tap-chess.html

or both, with me by email, drop me a line at [email protected]
We can email each other the notation and record and save our games
with ZILLIONS. 

What I really like about SLANTED ESCALATOR CHESS is that not only
is there interesting connectivity around the board, but that it's
going to be a bit challenging for each side to try to navigate the
board to get to the other side and get a good attack going. 
Should make things very interesting!

The trouble with my Zillions implementation is, a piece that captures a
Wall disappears until you make the board redraw itself.  When the computer
plays against itself, it's not a problem.  But when a human captures a
Wall, he needs to hit Ctrl-F twice or something.  It would be an easy, easy
thing for Zillions Development to fix.

I guess it's my own fault for trying to make two boards, one on top of the
other.  I just thought it would be more elegant that way.

Question: can a wounded friend move over (but obviously not stop on) a
square occupied by a mummy?  i am not sure.

if anybody wants to try this game with me by email, send to
[email protected]

Okay, but I don't believe that the Chancellor is worth less than the Q. The
midgame forking power of a piece that moves in 12 directions is quite
amazing, the Chancellor has exceptional ability to save an inferior game by
giving perpetual check, and finally,

the drawn cases of K+Q versus K+P are wins in the endgame K+NR vs K+P.

Of course there are positions that favor the Q, but all in all, my
experience says they are equal.

A Wounded Fiend (not 'friend' unless you are a truly scary creature) is
impeded by mummies, as indeed a Rook would be. Notice also that it cannot
retrace its steps because of its own ichor, and therefore, as Azgoroth once
said, 'carries within it the seeds of its own destruction'. (The endgame
where each side has one Wounded Fiend and nothing else can be quite
interesting.)

This game is tough to get used to. For a while I thought I had made a major
rules error, but in fact when a Leaf Pile engulfs, the mummy does not
appear until it moves on, and so the Leaf Pile is vulnerable to being
engulfed by an enemy Leaf Pile. If it were not so, the first player would
attack with Leaf Pile (engulfing his own Human for greater speed) and win
by force.

I am grateful for your effusive comments.

There will be more on the subject, as I like the game and have analyzed the
Weakest K versus Weakest King endgame -- it was very interesting.

But at the moment, I've gotten out a chessboard and some coins (with which
to mark mummies and statues) and am studying the play of the Game of
Nemoroth.

Oops. It seeme I misremembered what the Spirit told me in my dream, for
when I tried to play the game it was too easy to end up in an impasse with
no good way to break it; and the reason was clearly that the Go Aways were
not performing their intended role.

Then I tried a few games in which the Go Away moved by leaping two squares
Rookwise or by moving one square diagonally, and things seemed to work much
better -- in fact, just about exactly right, in conformance to the original
vision of the game.

It is funny how the Wounded Fiend seems to be such an unimportant piece,
when it was the original inspiration for the game.

Under 'Interactions', it should be added that

'Leaping pieces can cross unharmed a square seen by a Basilisk, for their
talons never touch the ground and therefore the Basilisk does not see
them.'

The interactions are so complicated! I need to make a chart to see if I
left anything else out.

I have rarely seen so much chatter as for this game. (N.B. there is
significant commentary on Nemoroth in the Yellow Journalism thread.)

A couple of points:

Is Nemoroth a chess variant?  If gnohmon says it is, who am I to gainsay
him?  I am an 'inclusionist' when it comes to chess variants, anyway.  It
actually seems more like an Amazons variant, and there are other more
chess-like games that make use of the 'shrinking board' mechanism, but what
the heck.  (Bob Abbott, who invented Ultima, did not think it was chess,
because it did not use replacement captures.  He was an 'exclusionist'.)

When Nemoroth is refined, and the rules settle down, may we expect pages on
'The Value of the Nemoroth Pieces' and 'Nemoroth with Different Armies'? 
Should we reserve the name www.nemorothvariants.com?

If interest remains high, how about the CVP sponsor a contest in Nemoroth
problem composition?

Hi,

I have worked out a slightly different method of setting up Fischer random
chess positions with a single six-sided die.   It's fairly easy to
memorizem because it follows logically from the positional rules of the
game.   As far as I can tell it will create all possible positions. Here it
is:

All die rolls are counted from the left side of the board from white's
point of view and apply to remaining empty and 'legal' squares only.

Because the king must be between both rooks, it can only occupy the central
six squares on each side.  Roll a die and place the king on one of the six
'central' squares.

Now place the rooks.   Roll a die for the left rook.  If the number exceeds
the number of squares on the left side of the king, roll again.    Repeat
for the right rook.  If there is only one square to the right or left of
the king, skip the rolls and simply place the rook.

Now place the Bishops.   Place the first bishop based on a die roll.   If
the roll value exceeds the number of remaining squares, roll again.   Place
the second bishop in a similar manner counting only the available squares
of the opposite color of the already placed bishop.

Place the queen with a die roll.  If the die number is 4-6 then subtract 3
from its value (to minimize the number of rolls necessary.)

Place the two knights on the last two squares.

I have yet to study this method in detail to determine if it favors certain
positions.


A modification of the die roll procedure to minimize re-rolls is as
follows:   If there are 2-3 'legal' squares for the rooks or the second
bishop take the remainder of the die in the 'modula' of the number of
remaining squares.  For example, if there are two legal squares for the
left rook, and one rolls a 5, one counts this as a '1', as 1 is the
remainder when one divides 5 by 2.  If the roll had been a '4' one would
count this as a '2'.   In the case of 3 empty squares, one a '5' would
count as a '2'.  A '6' would count as a '3' and a '4' would count  as a '1'
(as in the queen roll, which will always have 3).   

This method will not work without bias when there are 4-6 legal squares
remaining, and re-rolls must be employed.  However, statistically speaking,
fewer rolls will be necessary in such a case anyway.   

It is possible, though highly improbable, that one might require a very
large number of rolls to finally 'nail down' a position for the rooks and
bishops.  But once they are placed, only 1 roll remains.

What do you think?

Brad Hoehne- Columbus, Ohio.