Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

⇩Latest ⇩Later ⇩Reverse Order⇧ ~~Earlier~~

Cylindrical Chess. Sides of the board are supposed to be connected. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]

Charles Gilman wrote on Wed, Jun 2, 2010 06:38 AM UTC:

Yes, a Cannon in Cylindrical XQ can indeed capture a piece by hopping the same piece first and wrapping round, as long as there is no third piece on the rank. Likewise a Cannon in Billiards XQ can capture a piece by hopping the same piece and bouncing off the edge of the board.
	Another feature of Cylindrical XQ is the unbinding of Elephants.

Daniil Frolov wrote on Tue, Jun 1, 2010 12:16 PM UTC:

Hey, there is very interesting point:
Cylindrical Xiang-qi. There is cannon on one of ranks. And there one of opponent's pieces on same rank. There are no other piece on that rank. Can cannon capture this piece? Hehe...

Anonymous wrote on Wed, Apr 14, 2010 06:45 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★

I think, it's best unusual way to play ever!

David Paulowich wrote on Fri, Aug 24, 2007 02:08 PM UTC:

Jeremy asks: 'Maybe nightriders that can travel no more than two knight jumps away?'

2-step nightriders are useful pieces, which I value equal to Bishops on a 16x16 board. Certainly an interesting idea to try out in this game. Note: nightrider on (e4) can reach squares on the a-file by more than one path, as Abdul-Rahman Sibahi just pointed out.

Rooks can be deadly - suppose WHITE has King(g1), Bishop(g2), Pawns(f2, h2). Moving a BLACK Rook to the first rank gives double check and mate, as the Bishop can block either attack, but not both at once. A non-cylindrical queen on a cylindrical board might give the players headaches. A cylindrical queen with maximum move two squares can be very effective at hunting the king once the queen gets close enough. Probably similar in value to a cylindrical rook. Suspect the colorbound cylindrical bishop is still worth a pawn less than the cylindrical rook.

Jeremy Good wrote on Fri, Aug 24, 2007 01:52 PM UTC:

'If all the pieces were equal in value it would be a dull game, where people would exchange pieces and reach a pawn endgame.'

Pieces only start out with theoretical equality. At the start of FIDE Chess, the bishop and knight are said to be equal. But that doesn't mean one arbitrarily exchanges off all ones bishops and knights and then the real struggle takes place. The relative value throughout the game of each piece becomes all the more difficult to determine and these relative values are largely contingent on placement and pawn structure. [That helps make the game exciting: How can you maneuver in such a way as to make one piece take on greater value than another of theoretically equal value?] A knight is more powerful than a stopped up bishop in a closed position, to take an obvious example.

At any rate, my question is itself only theoretical. It isn't meant to be a value judgment about how to improve the aesthetic quality of Cylinder Chess. However: Would a game like the one I mention be worth playing and enjoyable? I think so!

Abdul-Rahman Sibahi wrote on Fri, Aug 24, 2007 01:41 PM UTC:

Ah, you're right. Knights are certainly not equal to Rooks in this game. But they do gain value from their ability to jump, AND Betza's leveling effect. If all the pieces were equal in value it would be a dull game, where people would exchange pieces and reach a pawn endgame.

Incidentally, I think the bishop, on a semi-open position, is stronger than the Rook on this board.

This is a diagram for the Nightrider's movement. The squares marked with & are can be reached by more than one path.

   +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+  
8  |   |:::| * |:::| & |:::| * |:::|  
   +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+  
7  |:::|   |:*:|   |:::|   |:*:|   |  
   +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+  
6  | & |:::|   |:*:|   |:*:|   |:::|  
   +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+  
5  |:::|   |:*:|   |:::|   |:*:|   |  
   +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+  
4  |   |:::|   |:::| N |:::|   |:::|  
   +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+  
3  |:::|   |:*:|   |:::|   |:*:|   |  
   +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+  
2  | & |:::|   |:*:|   |:*:|   |:::|  
   +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+  
1  |:::|   |:*:|   |:::|   |:*:|   |  
   +---+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+  
     a   b   c   d   e   f   g   h

Jeremy Good wrote on Fri, Aug 24, 2007 01:16 PM UTC:

Maybe nightriders that can travel no more than two knight jumps away?

Can you tackle my question about the relative value of a non-cylindrical queen on a cylindrical board?

David Paulowich wrote on Fri, Aug 24, 2007 01:01 PM UTC:

Knights are spooky! - is the best evaluation I have at the moment.

Nightriders are very strong on the 12x8 Courier Chess board, due to their ability to make long moves sideways, for example, from (b1) to (j5). They should even more powerful in Cylindrical Chess.

Jeremy Good wrote on Fri, Aug 24, 2007 12:22 PM UTC:

Maybe you're right, Abdul-Rahman! My thinking was that because the Cylindrical board entails a broader space, the knights decline in relative value just as they do on a board that is bigger than 8 x 8.

[Do you say that the knights in cylindrical chess are also equal to rooks?]

Abdul-Rahman Sibahi wrote on Fri, Aug 24, 2007 12:15 PM UTC:

Actually I don't believe Knights decline in value. For the very simple reason that they're not restricted by the edges or the corners. It's easier, therefore, to develop them.

Jeremy Good wrote on Fri, Aug 24, 2007 11:49 AM UTC:

Very interesting that rooks and bishops are said to be equal in this variant. Knights decline in value though so maybe they should be replaced by nightriders to restore equality with bishops. If queen were non-cylindrical queen, would it to become equal to the others?

pepperbeard wrote on Sun, Nov 12, 2006 09:00 AM UTC:Good ★★★★

I've enjoyed this variant since I read about it in a Thieves'World story (I believe it was 'Spiders of the Purple Mage'). In my experience, castling is essentially useless because there aren't any corners to hide in. Actually, I defeated one opponent because he relied on it. He also let me take out his queen with a pawn across the 'edge'.

Abdul-Rahman Sibahi wrote on Tue, Oct 17, 2006 03:51 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★

A possible rule to add that when castling normally the king moves two
squares, when castling over the edge the king move three squares.

The notation to this can simply be O-G , O-H , O-C and O-B . It depends on
where the king lands. For discriptive notation : O-KN , O-R , O-B and O-QN
.