Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

I changed the itemid for this page, because it is not for Game Courier presets, which is what the MP prefix is for. It now has an MS prefix.

The shortest range leaper jumps to the same square he is. So, this he would work as a pass piece.

I made a zillion of games test variant, where knights moved to the same square they are only, and are used to pass the turn.

Interesting question, George, and a temptation to hubris. I think there are different answers to your questions, depending on who is asked. Our goal in this project was to nudge the CV world toward seeing shortrange pieces as valuable in themselves. If you're out there, Christine - congrats! It actually worked! It was, way back at the beginning, Christine's idea to do a shatranj collaboration that started the project. And, for this website, it got a very good response. A number of people made games for it. And new people have referenced it in their short range games. So, I think that what's really come out of the project is that others are more willing to use shortrange pieces as main pieces in games, not just filler. In this little corner of the world, that rates as success. In the wider world, who knows? I suspect that in the future many of our games will be played by the multi-billions of people online. This is because we will have actually playtested them, and some of the good ones will survive.

As for the best pieces coming out of the project, I can't say. The hero and shaman are the most unique, and my personal opinion is that David Paulowich's Opulent Lemurian Shatranj is a true test of chess skill on the highest levels. 

But what I see is that the elephant [AF] and warmachine [DW] are showing up more, sometimes in a slightly different guise. Greg Strong's use of Betza's half duck [HFD], the scout [HW], which is an interesting, if twisted, knight analog, and the griffon [NHW] has apparently gotten people to look more, and use more, those sorts of pieces.

This points up another difference in short range pieces, awkwardness, a measure of how easy or not it is to use a piece. Compare the half duck to the linear hero [D+W]. Each reaches [up to] 12 squares, with a max range of 3. Each has stepping and leaping ability. Both color change. In fact, they both reach 8 of the same squares, of their respective 12. But the hero is an easier piece to use than the half duck. Some prefer that, some prefer it the other way. 

One other thing the project looked at was larger boards. I encouraged Gary Gifford to make larger boards for his game, and he put together some interesting variants, where the pieces stayed the same, and the board changed. No one has picked up on this, but size does matter...

As far as spreading the games, TSRP is also on zillions with 30ish games, if I recall, and some of the shatranj variants have gotten onto free chess software, like Greg's ChessV or HG Muller's chess engines. So games are out there.

I am registered, at last, and my revision to Scirocco has been posted.

On most days, I think I'd say a 2D chesslike game without drops feels cramped on a board smaller than 10 x 10. In part that is because I like short-ranged pieces, but a game with just short-ranged pieces is drawish when there are too few of them. 10 x 10 is about the size where you can put enough short-ranged pieces on the board to reduce the number of draws to decent levels.

As for 'normally ranged' pieces (which I assume means pieces that can cross the board in a single move), I think they work fine on a board of any size, but games where such pieces are in the minority and shorter-ranged pieces in the majority feel more natural. This is more true on larger boards, where it can become difficult visually to follow a long movement path (I've never played Taikyoku Shogi, and probably never will, but I'm pretty sure I'd get confused about which piece a Bishop attacks when it's halfway across the board, especially since the board squares are all the same color).

I've found that complicated chess variants are a lot less so when there's
a visual reminder of how the pieces move. Using a piece set for Scirocco
like the one I made for Zillions, I don't think the game is particularly
difficult to grasp, at least into the midgame. As you approach the point
where you can promote, you also need a reminder of how each piece
promotes. Zillions lets you do with a mouseover; it also helps to keep on
your screen an alternative setup where every piece starts promoted, so
that you can see the move diagrams on the promoted pieces as well.

I've tried to submit a slight revision of Scirocco to these pages to
smooth out some of its eccentricities, but my submission (like my attempt
to register as a user) seems to have gotten lost. If you give me your
e-mail address, I can mail you a copy directly.

Thank you for the comments and the rating, Mr King [and please call me Joe, I'm not a very formal person]. It seems I may have been too pessimistic in my view when this was written; there are many very nice shortrange pieces in the world of chessvariants. What they really need is good promotion in an advertising sense, rather than a chess sense [though, as Scirocco shows, they can be promoted both ways]. 

What I have tried to do is show that short range does not necessarily mean weak. How weak is the king, as a piece? A pair of moderately powerful pieces, the NAF and the NDW, the shortrange analogs of the archbishop and chancellor, moving only 2 squares max, can drive the king to oblivion very quickly in a game of Great Shatranj, for example. There are a lot of simple, easy to use and understand shortrange pieces that move 2, 3 or 4 squares at most, that do very well on any size board. They provide a variety to the games that the 'vast array' of infinite sliders doesn't.

I posted a couple of variants here -- Scirocco and Typhoon -- about a
decade ago. Both are heavy on short-range pieces, and if you'll excuse my
immodesty, I still like the way they look. They might play well, too, but
I've never played them except against Zillions, and I don't know of
anyone else who's played them at all.

Scirocco is a 10 x 10 game, which seems about the right size to me for a
basic chess variant. Typhoon is 12 x 12, with the same number of pieces
(in the same relative positions) as Chu Shogi, which is apparently more
than most people are willing to take on, although Zillions playing a game
this size against itself makes wonderful wallpaper. I've never seen a
draw in either game.

With Scirocco I included an 8 x 8 variant, Shatranjirocco, with the same
number of pieces (of about the same strength) as in Shatranj. This game
*is* drawish, probably almost as much so as Shatranj.

The points I'd like to make are:

. I think Mr. Joyce is right in saying that 8 x 8 games are, as a rule,
too drawish. You have to introduce something like drops in order to make a
game that size complex enough to hold human interest for more than a few
centuries.

. And I agree with Mr. Joyce again about FIDE chess. Part of the problem
here is that the stronger pieces are too much stronger than the weak
pieces; too often it's hard to arrange exchanges of approximately equal
value (except of pieces of the same type), so from many positions it only
makes sense to play defensively. If the pieces available to exchange are
closer in value, it becomes a lot more plausible to exchange material for
a positional advantage.

. For all the interest weaker pieces have in the opening and the midgame,
they are tiresome to try to checkmate with, at least if you're using
traditional, unconfined Kings and no drops. For that reason I like the
Shogi-style every-piece-promotes-in-the-end-zone convention: it all but
guarantees that even large variants come to an end in a reasonable amount
of time. (I don't care for the promtion-on-capture rule of some of the
giant Shogis, because it puts too much power on the board too early and
obscures the role of the weaker pieces.)

. There remain a number of directions in which to push the invention of
short-range pieces. The great Shogis concentrate mainly on movement
patterns: with a few interesting exceptions, they are combinations of
leaping and short ranging movements through empty spaces, in either case
capturing by displacement. However, there are other things pieces can do:
consider, for example, shorter-range versions of Ultima or Rococo pieces.
I tried to explore a little of this space in my not-quite-finished 16 x 16
variant Jupiter, but you could certainly use many of the same ideas on a
smaller board.

Let me be contrarian yet again. David quotes Sam and Greg, who question whether the Great Shatranj game is drawish because it has all shortrange pieces. I argued over 2 years ago that the most drawish of my shatranj games would be Modern Shatranj, because it has the smallest front - 8 squares across - and Great [and Grand and others] would be less drawish, because they have wider fronts and no longrange pieces. I just looked at the game logs for Modern Shatranj, and, of 18 completed games, 6 are draws [okay 5 of them are me, but I did win 4 more]. My prediction is that there are no draws in the other 2 games...
Great Shatranj - 9 games completed, no draws
Grand Shatranj - 9* games completed, 1 draw
Oops. Well, 2 things. One, the 9* is closer to 7, because 2 of my games timed out after a few moves. Two, 1 of 16 or 1 of 18 is considerably less than 6 of 18. I still maintain that more powerful pieces on a narrower front create more draws, specifically because you can clog up that narrow front with a few weak pieces supported by strong longrange pieces. Now, I don't play or follow FIDE chess, but several people onsite have mentioned excessive draws in that game as a problem. Some of it, I gather, is because masters apparently agree to draws beforehand, but why are all those games drawn? What are the tactical and strategic reasons they draw? I will venture to guess it's because weak pieces clog up the middle of the 8x8, supported by the power pieces. It becomes too expensive to break through, then; it's a case of whoever attacks, loses, in those cases, no?

Sam Trenholme writes: [2006-10-18] '... I really like the ideas presented here. I'm a little worried about powerful short range pieces making attack too difficult and defense too easy (My perpetual worry about a game being too drawish).'

Greg Strong writes: [2006-10-18] 'Sam, your comment makes me wonder about something. You raise the possibility that short-range pieces may make defense easier than attack. Do you think that making the short-range pieces have more forward-movement capability than backward capability would mitigate this?'

Joe and I are currently playtesting his GREAT SHATRANJ pieces on a 12x8 board. The slow moving General (Guard) has been replaced by a third Rook in each army. Twelve forward-moving Pawns, with unlimited promotions, will threaten to overwhelm the defense in the endgame phase.

My 10x10 variants include: Opulent Lemurian Shatranj, using some of Joe's 'midrange' pieces, and Shatranj Kamil X, with a collection of weaker pieces ranging from the Ferz to the Cannon. (I have already given this page an excellent rating.)

[2006-10-21] 'Technically, an n/2 piece is scalable, getting its maximum movement range from board size and not as an intrinsic part of the piece itself.' - Joe Joyce

Ralph Betza strikes again! See Halflings for the start of his investigation. The Halfling Rose moves to all the squares a Rose can move to! WARNING: you may need a law degree to define halfling versions of some pieces which move in 'twisty paths'.

Hey, Christine! Sorry it took me so long to reply, got trampled by events
recently. Still, I'm remiss in not yet thanking all the people who
enjoyed the  article and especially all those who have actively
participated in one way or another. David Paulowich suggested Lemurian
Shatranj with rooks. Claudio Martins Jaguaribe roughed out a game called
Naval Base Chess at the Yahoo chessvariants group, which has been modified
but not yet completed. Mike Nelson has posted Insane Flip Relay Shatranj
here at CV and promises a preset. Greg Strong has posted Hubbub here,
along with a preset; Greg is currently harrassing me with a knight 10-12
moves into a game. Gary Gifford created 6 Fortresses Short Range, posted
the rules and a preset, and then [Amazingly! :D ] created 2 variants of
that game, with rules and presets, which use the same setup and pieces but
vary the original 6FSR board length  and are named Shoranji and Shoranji
Maximus. Gary and I are playing our second version now. 
To all these people, my apologies in being so slow to acknowledge your
several efforts, and for not yet having put in links to your game rules
and presets that are listed in the Update to the Games Released section in
the beginning of the TSRP article. I hope to fix that quite soon, but I
don't see how I'll manage a shortrange piecelopedia anytime soon. Its
size seems to have outrun my current typing abilities.
A number of people have recently posted games that fall into the
shortrange category, come close, or use some shortrange pieces in larger
variants, without making the fuss over it I have. Great! Some of those
games are really nice. But doing it this way, with a little hype and
soliciting of ideas, has been a lot of fun. Here, I'd like to thank
Christine for having the idea of a collaboration on shatranj-like games in
the first place. And, in spite of miscommunications 2-10 times a day, or
maybe helped along by them, it was a very rewarding experience for me, and
I hope for her. She certainly earned my thanks; I know she worked hard on
TSRP. We both hope others will continue to read, play, design and enjoy
the shortrange aspects of chess variants. We still actively solicit
people's comments and participation, and do respond to questions and
suggestions. Doug Chatham has asked about alternate forms of capture. I
expect to release a game soon that uses a few different forms of capture,
with a good-sized board and no piece moving over 3. This might be a good
secondary theme, short range with more than 1 form of capture. There's
plenty of room for more updates.

Claudio, i like it! (sorry for late reply).
thanks for taking an interest in 'the shortrange project', i think it
should be added to 'project 2', i am sure Joe would agree.
If we can't put a zrf together, we can at least add info/link for this
game.

This is my first contribution to the project. I hope you all like it!

http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/chessvariants/message/2520

Cheers! And more to come!

Joe says ..

I will note that while it's easy to tell our writing apart, people will find it much harder to tell our designs apart, as we fall into the category of designers exemplified by Fighting Kings and Royal Pawn Chess. And since we discuss games and look at each other's work, it's sometimes hard for us to tell just who did what. [Now if we could only understand each other...]

Wow, very nicely put. Looking at the games now, it seems like one person put them together. i know i was doing stuff thinking 'you are going to like this' and visa versa, but how does this explain the 50 million emails that went down all with the theme of 'what are you talking about?!' lol.

Claudio, yes, the 1, 2, 3, 4 are absolute [small, whole] numbers. These
distances are forced by the nature of the pieces - any chesslike piece
must move at least 1 square; if it leaps it must move at least 2 squares;
if it both slides and leaps, it may move 3 squares [though it could move
less]; and if you have a double leaper, it may move up to 4 squares. These
numbers are totally independent of the boards on which they are placed. And
yes, their power varies with board size; specifically it goes up more and
more as the boards get smaller. Technically, an n/2 piece is scalable,
getting its maximum movement range from board size and not as an intrinsic
part of the piece itself. And it could have, on an 8x10 board, a
back-and-forth movement of 4 and a side-to-side movement of 5. This is not
something I had thought of until just now answering your question. The
scalable R/2, B/2 or whatever could be interesting [if gimmicky] pieces.
Anyway, that's why I listed 3 somewhat different ways to look at
shortrange pieces instead of just 1 definition of 'the' shortrange
piece.
Greg, I'd enjoy playing Grand Shatranj against you [or any of my other
shortrange variants], but I don't feel I should compete for a 'World
Championship' with only 1 other person. If several players, including,
say, John Vehre, were to compete, then I would be more willing to play,
but wouldn't have a prayer of winning. I'd be happy to play a friendly
game with you.
Sam, Gary, I agree that shogi-style drops certainly unbalance a situation,
and should therefor more easily lead to a conclusion; but I am, frankly,
terrified of games that use drops as I have almost no familiarity with
them and far too easily get lost in the maze of potential positions -
another reason why I only discuss Western chess development in the
article.
Christine does have a nice little add, but I can't tell and spoil the
surprise. I will note that while it's easy to tell our writing apart,
people will find it much harder to tell our designs apart, as we fall into
the category of designers exemplified by Fighting Kings and Royal Pawn
Chess. And since we discuss games and look at each other's work, it's
sometimes hard for us to tell just who did what. [Now if we could only
understand each other...]