[ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Ratings & Comments
It recently occurred to me that I might have named the Zombie an Iron Golem so that its dissolution by ichor would be a nethack reference. But perhaps that would have been inappropriate after all. Lovecraft never played a game of Nethack in his life.
Yes, I'm afraid that recursion (drat and drat again) must be explicitly
forbidden, which is too bad because it sounded like fun.
'Favors Black, you think? Then perhaps you will be willing to offer me substantial odds as we play a game for some enormous stake of money, perhaps a penny on a1 doubled on each successive square?' I had almost put the above statement into the story of getting a regular chessplayer to play Chigorin Chess, somewhere after the part where 'variant rhymes with deviant and that starts with d and rhymes with t and stands for trouble.', and way after the part where the regular chessplayer says with a sneer is that some kind of fairy chess.... (I'm not suggesting that you're the offensive non-PC 'regular chessplayer'; the misinformation about relative values of N and B is part of general unwisdom, that's all.) Read any monograph on the Chigorin Defense. You'll find that many players now believe the N to be superior in the early stages of the game, which agrees with my findings on the theory of chess values so I think it must be right. Given the advantage of the first move to go with the advantage of fast development, the *white* side in Chigorin Chess probably has a large advantage. In order to Castle K-side, Black needs to move two Pawns and two Bishops; and one of those P moves looks suspiciously like a weakening move. White can go 5.O-O at the earliest, but Black can choose to go 3...O-O; think about it! And, of course, this is the whole point of Chigorin Chess! You can get a 'regular chessplayer' to play, because he will want to prove that the Bishops are so much superior...
Shall we go with Tony Paletta's suggestion, and avoid all temporary powers
when calculating overprotection? It does make it simpler, and importantly
improves clarity.
You have trapped me and won the game of game-making! You suggested recursive, and I said 'sure, okay', and then you hoisteded me with me own petard by pointing out a most ingenious paradox, more ingenious than Doctors Einstein and Schweitzer. I am bereft, like an apprentice to Pilate. Where can I find an mp3 of busy editorial beavers whistling the 'Happy Editor' song as they undo a previous change?
Wow!! Who said theme doesn't count in abstract games? I want to play this, but I think I'm going to be disapointed when the pieces remain silent. I want to see a ZRF, but not too soon. Whoever does it needs to do a good job on the graphics, not to mention audio, to do the game justice. 'What eldritch noise did I hear?' Perhaps the screech of the El.
I thought this page was good becuase it gave you all the rules. They wer eeasy to understand and showed diagrams for furthur clarification
This variant seems to favor Black materially by at least a pawn.
Apart from the paradox problem, the need to take into account temporary powers makes assessment of overprotection a bit complicated. I would suggest ignoring temporary powers in assessing overprotection.
Absolutely great, in coherence of theme and originality!
This is something new in a way, or at least something not often done. It
is a game where the two sides, while having the same movement, have
different board topologies to deal with in the opening and midgame, and I
think it an interesting idea. Now, if there was just some way to determine
if it was balanced . . .
I've heard vague rumours that this game, or a game very much like it, is still played at Miskatonic University... The excellent rating applies to presentation and originality. I have not playtested this game (yet). Truth be told, I'm not sure I *want* to! :)
Busy editorial beavers have made the requested edits to this page, all the
while whistling the 'Happy Editor' song.
<p>
Ok, I read the part about having to be attacked to be overprotected, but
somehow it didn't sink in. But there's still a lovely paradox here.
<p>
Consider:
<blockquote>
White has Pawns on <b>a3</b>, <b>b4</b> and <b>c3</b>, and a Rook on
<b>b1</b>.
<p>
Black has Pawns on <b>a6</b>, <b>b5</b> and <b>c6</b>, a Rook on <b>b8</b>,
and a Bishop on <b>d6</b>.
</blockquote>
The white Pawn on <b>b4</b> is attacked by one piece, and defended by
three, so it can move and capture as a Wazir. Which means it attacks the
black Pawn on <b>b5</b>. The black Pawn is then attacked by one, and
defended by three, so <em>it</em> can now move and capture like a Wazir.
But this reduces the white Pawn on <b>b4</b> from being overprotected by
two to being overprotected by one, which means it can no longer capture
the black Pawn at <b>b5</b>. But if it can not capture the black Pawn at
<b>b5</b>, the black Pawn isn't attacked, and so can't capture the white
Pawn which suddenly overprotected by two, which means it <em>can</em>
capture the black Pawn. But it can't . . .
When Nemoroth finally appears, you will be amazed by the piece called the Wounded Fiend, and the distant resemblance to the Tron Queen. There must be something in the air that makes people come up with similar ideas at nearly the same time.
A Pawn or piece must be attacked in order to be overprotected. I said that, right? 'and dynamic' ... 'where checkmating the opponent could also checkmate you!' means that the enemy K is defended several times (but of course not attacked) so that when you attack the enemy K it becomes overprotected and gives check to your nearby King. I could have made that clearer, right? But you're correct, even the closest reading of this doesn't really say whether it's recursive. Yes, why not recursive, gosh darn it and gosh darn it again? If you could overprotect an unattacked piece, this would 'merely' be a new (and perhaps an excellent) form of Relay Chess. So, should add a line that the powers gained by an overprotected piece can be used to overprotect another piece. Should add a line 'therefore you can destroy your opponent's overprotection by moving your attacker away'. And should add the explanation of how giving check[mate] can check[mate] yourself. Better now?
This looks like fun! I particularly like that once you overprotect a Pawn
by two (easy enough -- just take an unattacked Pawn and give it two
supporters), suddenly it captures forward and to the side.
<p>
I find myself wondering if overprotection is calculated recursively. That
is, when determining overprotection, is overprotection taken into account?
<p>
Consider the following:
<blockquote>
White Pawns at <b>a3</b>, <b>b4</b> and <b>c3</b>;
<p>
Black Pawns at <b>a6</b>, <b>b5</b> and <b>c6</b>.
</blockquote>
Assume white's move. Can the white Pawn on <b>b4</b> capture the black
Pawn on <b>b5</b>? If you apply white's Wazir capture first, then it
can (since it is overprotected by two, black not having a Wazir capture
as it is only overprotected by one), if you apply black's Wazir capture
first, it can not (since then the white Pawn will only be overprotected by
one). Curious, no?
Author's note: I'd like to see this in Zillions. --Adam Norberg
I recently sent in a nomination to make this game--a well-established,
widely-disseminated, thoroughly-played design--a 'recognized' variant. If
you agree, send the editors an email. :)
This appears to be an excellent game, with a lot of thought and effort. Is it a chess variant? Not really, even though it uses chess pieces. It's a mathematical (topology) abstract game, and you might find many fans for it in rec.games.abstract -- give it a try! Many abstract mathematical games become popular and widely played, but the market for them is not 'chess variant' people. I haven't tried Chain of Fools, but if it's as good as it looks you'd be doing yourself a big favor by taking the game over to rec.games.abstract, where you can find folks who will really appreciate it.
I think I was a little unclear about my idea. A stepping piece would move
on a chatter line if one of the squares that it could move to was on that
chatter line. Thus, a player with a King on <b>a3</b>, and a Bishop on
<b>a1</b>, with the Bishop having a clear move to <b>h8</b> could move the
King all the way to <b>h8</b>. Which is why it could be hard to run down
the King without disposing of the Bishop first.
<p>
But in any case, your suggestion to exclude the King and Pawns from this
behavior is probably wise, leaving it for various Faerie and CDA pieces in
their stepping moves.
thank you for the rules for space chess. I too lost the directions to my
set years ago. My set was purchased at a game store in 1994as well, looks
extactly like the one you have placed on the web, but the box it came in
says 1981 Pacific Game Company,INC. no. 1420
Just as a note from the author: Ed's variant of doing queen attacks does work well, also. But don't get too trigger-happy- it's good defense. Make sure you don't get blindsided by a bishop in the classic variant! The major downside to the queen shot variant is that then you can't reasonably use a bishop to move in for the kill; you pretty much have to lose two pieces to the shotgun, unless you use knights well... -- Adam Norberg (sgamer [att] swbell [dott] net )
I had not played chess in 40 years. It was a great refresher; covered all
the rules in a straight-forward manner. Nice job.
I would like to announce that I am going to be running an Omegachess tournament by email on Richard's Play By Email server at http://www.gamerz.net/pbmserv In order to play in the tournament you must have a PBM userid. Check out http://www.gamerz.net/tutorial.html and http://www.gamerz.net/commands.html if you are new and want to sign up for a free userid and password on the server. You do not have to have ever played Omegachess before on the server to compete in this tournament. If you would like to play in the event please email me your PBM userid to [email protected] I have not yet decided exactly how I am going to structure the Omega tournament. It will probably be a round robin tournament, with between 4 to 8 games in the first round, and a certain number of players advancing to a second and final round. I would also like to announce that I am also going to run a chess tournament on PBM too. This is traditional orthodox chess! This tournament is open to the first 25 players who email me to enter. I will be creating five 5-man sections. Each player will play a total of 4 games, 2 as white and 2 as black, one game against each of the other players in the tournament. The 5 section winners will then advance to a final 5-man section for the championship of the tournament. In the event of a tie for first place in a section the first tiebreaker is head-to-head result. In the event of a draw or a 3-way tie where A beat B, B beat C and C beat A, all tied players advance to the finals and a larger final section will be created. Again, to compete in this tournament you must have a PBM userid. You may enter both tournaments if you like. When emailing me please make sure to specify which tournament you are entering. Thanks again and good luck!!
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.