Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

It's a very different game. It's hard to know what to think without having played it. Making it playable with Game Courier would be a good idea.

I can understand that. It is a bit presumptuous of me to express such an idea.

But I'm glad to hear that the variant is treading a path that can hardly be compared. That also has something - at least for me. It was worth a try.

Would it cost you a lot of effort to program the variant?

It probably would. Because, as you say, the rules are rather unusual. So it is not just a matter of using an existing program, and telling it how large the board is and how the pieces should move this time. Not having Pawns, or allowing captures only from a limited board zone is not so much of a problem. But having a neutral piece that can be moved by both players goes completely against the logic of any program I have. And that it is the royal piece makes this ever so much worse. So I would pretty much have to start from scratch.

To implement Duck Chess, which is also quite unusual (but in a completely different way) took me about 3 weeks. I considered that acceptable because it is a variant that already enjoys a large popularity on several chess servers. And because as a spin off it would also give me Blue Chip Chess and Refusal Chess, which are similar. But for a unique variant, that perhaps no one will ever play...

An honorable response, thank you.

... my hobby is programming computers, not playing games.

Would it cost you a lot of effort to program the variant? Maybe others would like to try the variant once. That would be then a beautiful conclusion.

My variant 'Borderline' is obviously ignored, although it has been published.

Don't take it personal; almost everything posted here gets ignored.

Making a game playable is basically the responsibility of the inventor. Most people know how to make a preset for Game Courier, even if it is only one that doesn't enforce rules. Someone must be really eager to play a certain variant designed by another before he would make a GC preset for that himself. Of course that depends on how appealing they find the variant, and not in the first place on how innovative it is. But most of the time it would never happen.

And you are right; Borderline is very different from Chess, and this might scare people off. I myself am more interested in variants that only differ by how the pieces move. (But I don't play those either; my hobby is programming computers, not playing games.)

My variant 'Borderline' is obviously ignored, although it has been published.
The reluctance is understandable.
Nevertheless, I would like to point out that the mechanism does not seem to have existed yet - does it? 'No pawns', 'the capture of pieces does not take place - except for the king'. This is against the holy grail. Agreed.
But why should only the most complicated variants get attention. And just those are made playable. It may be that I am in a dead end - but I would like to be able to understand that.
 

Okay Ben, sorry for the short rules section.
I added the rule about excluding capturing pieces to the rules section. If there is anything else missing from the rules section, please let me know.

I have played the game many times and did not get the impression that the queen and rook play a decisive role in the final result of the game.

If someone should take the pity to program the game, it will turn out that the strategic component of the game cannot be determined by single pieces.

In the rules I have emphasized: In contrast to all chess variants, the capturing of opposing pieces is excluded. Only the king can be captured.
 

white (blue) can put the king in check on ranks 5-7

I wonder how hard mate will be; you can't get very close to the king while still giving check, so a rook/queen net seems the only way, but with all the other pieces getting in the way...
On the other hand, maybe all the other pieces actually help? A sample mate (preferably one arising from actual play) would be helpful.

In Borderline, capturing pieces is excluded

Oh boy, sorry. Maybe add that all-important bit as the first bulleted Rule so skimmers like me don't miss/forget it from the intro (ugh, and even the short description, maybe it's just me)?

Do you mean white (er...blue?) pieces don't give check except when they are on ranks 4-7?

Almost - on the border line the king cannot be attacked. The king can be put in check only when a piece of one side has crossed the border line. Specifically, white (blue) can put the king in check on ranks 5-7, and black (red) can do so on ranks 3-1.

What do you think about the volatility of facing rooks and queens?

In Borderline, capturing pieces is excluded - except for the king, which must be captured to win the game. In this respect, it is not of particular importance when rooks and queens face each other. Did I understand the question correctly?

Why Boderline? Unlike the variants where the board is complexly changed (this also goes to my own address with Chess 66 or Chess 69) or new pieces with new move possibilities are created, I was looking for a mechanism which has a certain independence and which has not existed before (hopefully). Maybe I succeeded with a game where there is only one king, which both parties want to capture and which can be moved by both parties instead of one of their own pieces. It is also possible that the game has become too simple for many and they do not want to deal with it. We will see.
 

Do you mean white (er...blue?) pieces don't give check except when they are on ranks 4-7?

What do you think about the volatility of facing rooks and queens?

I'll give it another try - even if that should mean a crack-up.

I have changed the rules, made it playable - hopefully!

It is not a 'big' game, a game for the short moment, something to exercise!

Whoever has improvements to contribute is very welcome.

Well, if you want to recycle captured material without taking up a turn to do that, you could do it similar to Musketeer Chess. A Captured piece would reappear on its starting square when it is empty, or as a side effect of the first move that evacuates the square after it was captured. That would still pose the problem that you must remember on which square a piece of a given type started, as for R, N and B there would be two possibilities. Of course you can also stipulate that the user can choose which empty square it goes to, while it would go at the first of teh two that gets evacuated when both are occupied at the moment of capture.

It may be that my concept is garbage. But it could also be that it could work. Am grateful for any suggestion.

Okay, that doesn't sound very logical. You could still say that a captured piece falls back to the baseline, a square can be chosen, but that doesn't make things better. The concept needs to be rethought.

The knight falls back to its starting position b1.

So it coexists with the Rook there? One can have two pieces on the same square in this variant?

And what is a stalemate 'between two moves'? The only stalemate I know is when you have no legal moves at all. Is there a rule against moving when two pieces are on a3?

Maybe my gobbledegook can be unraveled.

Regarding your question: 1.Nc3 Ra3 2.Rb1 Rxc3... What happens? The knight falls back to its starting position b1. My answer was: For example, Nc3 - which means that the knight can immediately hit back. Or to say it another way: the rook attack goes nowhere.

The following was a new example and I thought you could see that (surely my mistake). I asked: But what about Ne3 Ra3 - here I made a typo, because it should be Na3 Ra3. In this case we would have a stalemate between Na3 and Ra3; this applies equally to Ra3 and Ba3. That's what I wanted to point out. I expect that no one wants to stay in the stalemate and that other moves will take place. Here I had mentioned the counter, but I'm not sure if this is a solution.

P.S.: Comments should not be written with the mobile phone.

What you say cannot be understood, as you give no move numbers. It seems gobbledegook anyway, as there is no Knight that can go to c3 in the position I gave.

Let me rephrase the question: 2... Rxc3 captured a Knight. Where does that Knight go?

For example, Nc3. But what about Ne3 Ra3? Then we have a stalemate between Ra3 and Nb1 or Ra3 and Bc1. One could end the round robin with a counter. But since no one has an interest in that, reason wins out and the game continues with other moves. At least one would think so.

OK, so now we play 1.Nc3 Ra3 2.Rb1 Rxc3... What happens?

Since captured pieces get back into play by taking their position on the baseline, it is implied that opposing pieces on the baseline cannot be captured.

Here my description was not sufficient, sorry. It should read: 'Capturing of opponent's pieces on the baseline is excluded'. Therefore a move Ra2xa7 is not possible.

I have adjusted my description.

Well, so now we play 1. Ra1-a2 Nb7-c5 2. Ra2xa7. What happens?

I had it in mind, but did not formulate it. Therefore a first addition:

Capturing from baseline to baseline is excluded.

I have adjusted the rules.

There is much about this I don't understand, but let's start here:

The capture of opponent's pieces take place. The captured pieces start again from their base position on the baseline.

So let's say the first move a a1-a7, capturing the opponent's rook.  What happens?  Its start square is not vacant.