Single Comment

John, I was going to reply to your, er, ah, <i>proposal</i>, but I find I can't think of <strong>anything</strong> appropriate to say . . . <p> <p> There seems to be Ruddigore in the air, since Ralph's submitted but as-yet-unpublished (I'm getting to it!) Chatter Chess also references it, not to mention the Ruthven (Negative Relay Knight) in 'Worse than Useless'. I wonder where I left my soundtrack CD? <p> <p> Balancing a Feebback and a non-Feebback army? One idea is to add all of th missing attacks from the back to the front: <p> <ul> <li> Kings are missing three back attacks, so they can capture (but not move without capturing) straight-forward or diagonally-forward two squares. </li><p><li> Queens are missing three attack lines back, so they can capture (but not move without capturing) in the forward four directions as Rhinos (four instead of three as it is symmetrical and because of duplicated squares). </li><p><li> Rooks only have a single attack line missing, so they get to capture (but not move without capturing) as a Halfling Bishop on the forward diagonals. </li><p><li> Bishops lose two attack lines, so they get to capture (but not move without capturing) narrowly forward as Rhinos. </li><p><li> Knights need four attack squares replaced, and they should be color changing, so they get to capture but not move without capturing as a forward or sideways Wazir. </li></ul> Would that balance it? <p> Another approach, but a very different game use a vertically cyclindrical board of 8x14, a line of Pawns on either side of the pieces, and have both armies consider forward the same direction. <p> PBA