Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Rich, 

this suggestion, at least similar, has been documented here:

http://www.chessvariants.org/piececlopedia.dir/sergeant.html

The sergeant is a good blockade piece, Four of them is enough to make any
particular rank untouchable to the opponent.

What do you think about the second row of ninja pawns in Titan Chess?
From considerable testing , this is the most balanced 12x12 I have played.
A lot of tactical play but also room for a great deal of strategy.

Thanks for the responses here.  

Well, I don't see what I had suggested being done before. It does look a
bit like the Ninja Pawn or the Sergeant, but the difference as I see it,
is that this pawn merely adds one capture forward to its usual move.  This
is meant to offset the distance involved in odd number row games.  I can
see other methods working during a game.  My take is this approach of just
adding capture forward, is probably the least disruptive.  In other cases,
where you have the Sergeant, you can fix holes in pawn structures that
isn't naturally part of chess.  The Ninja pawn is a neat piece to use in
addition to Pawns, but as replacement for pawns, the lateral movement, as
I see it, stalls the game out.

What I had found on a Nx9 board is that the capture forward (in cases
where they only move one space forward) creates an additional buffer zone
in front of the pawns, which makes them act like they are an addition
space forward, even when they aren't.  They also strengthen double and
triple pawns, but don't do it by shifting.

By the way, regarding the Sergeant, anyone know what you call a pawn that
moves NSEW, promotes, and captures diagonally NE, NW, SE, SW?

Anyone on the Sergeant thing, is there a Corporal piece?  If the Sergeant moves as that, then I would suggest the piece that moves one space forward, and captures all three spaces forward, be called a Corporal piece, unless it exists under another name.  It is a weak version of a Sergeant. And a weakened version of a Corporal would be a regular Pawn, which could also have the name 'Private'.

Rich, thanks for your response. Mybe I am misunderstanding something but
your suggestion  the capture forward isn't it more like  Chinese Chess? I
understand this is in addition to the diagonal capture but the problem is
you end up playing a much more tactical game similar to Xiang Qi

I am unsure of your meaning  when you say: 'My take is this approach of
just adding capture forward, is probably the least disruptive. '

It seems to me that the entire nature of pawn play is changed. Compare to
the lateral movement and upper board capture movement of ninja pawn. These
pawns can actually be stopped by other pawns. 
Is it is an intrinsic property of orthodox chess for two pawns to face
each other unable to move . Your ability makes it more like Xiang Qi which
is a totally different type of pawn play entirely. 

It seems to me like you would like to completely change the nature of pawn
movement rather than just 'balance' things out on a bigger board. My
testing showed that the ninja pawn addition just reinforced the pawns and
compensated for piece over pawn dominance.

Hutnik's asks origin of Pawn moving NSEW and capturing omni-diagonally.
Centennial Chess Steward is also called QuadraPawn used after Centennial
invented in 1990's in number of other CVs. Offhand ''Corporal'' and Sergeant exist under other names. We are clearly at the re-inventing stage, where (almost) nothing new under the Sun.  //Second Comment: Hutnik is assuming 9 and more ranks (''rows'' is equivocal) throughout this thread. If only 8 ranks and 9 or more files, there is no need for Pawn enhancement at all. //Thirdly, Big Battle invented 1994 and patented has interesting Pawn enhancement, facing the overwhelming empty space 10x10 dumps on the players. I.e., Big Battle Pawns can move 1, 2, or 3 spaces non-capturing any time, not just from their array.

Such pawns are hazardous to Pawn Shields which are very important in FIDE type chess variants. They are also hazardous in regard to 'outposts' such as the famous 'Knight Outpost.' Perhaps that is why Navia Dratp only gave two of these specialized pawns to each side?

My take on why I propose the Eurasian pawn that moves forward, but captures
NE, NW, and N is that it is a way to close the gap in spaces, without
adding extra mobility.  Whether or not it is needed, depends on the
context.  I will say in Near Chess on a 8x9 board, the pawn capture
forward is very important to the game.  The pawn capture forward (North)
is what forces pieces to develop behind the pawns instead of in front,
which is a trademark of Near Chess.  If one were to allow moving two
spaces forward for the pawn, it would be unbalanced and unfair to black.

There may be merit to the 1,2,3 moves any time though some of the changes
in Big Battle esp to the king seem a bit excessive. 

But I would like to mention a change I made to the pawn movement in all my
games (including the pot luck tournament games). 

All regular pawns now have the option of moving two squares forward to the
center of the board on the second move, if they  moved 1 square (or
captured) from their original position on the first move.  


- This strengthens the pawns and allows them to pave the way for the ninja
pawns. This affects the games Titan Chess, Stealth Ninja Chess and Birds
and Ninjas. 

The changes are already made to the game rules on the site. 


I hope this is not a problem for anyone playing the tournament (if it is
we can always play the old 1 step movement on 2nd move)

I will say that the Eurasian Pawn would be effective in games where there
an odd number of rows, and leave it at that.

Hutnik voices this weave in favour of the Eurasian Pawn, defined within. Expropriating somewhat, from Next Chess standpoint, in general should Western Pawn be changed?  Unlike pieces,
Pawns seem designed belatedly to fit each game.  Infrequently does a CV
start with Pawns and work outwards to pieces.  Yet some have no Pawns at
all, as Gilman's http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MScommediadellar and his more important Pawnless Ecumenical somewhere. Now given new standard 8x10 CV like Great Shatranj, Mastodon, Falcon, Schoolbook, is Western Pawn ideal? Joyce's G.S. gives impression that its variant with standard full Pawn of the West is the preferred one. Whilst still 8-deep, either ''all the time two-stepping'' or ''origination three-step'' both in fact are unnecessary. Those two are the most common changes injected Pawns on 10x10 -- not employed in any of the four above. En passant and two-step origination are obviously a paired mutation. Like horse and carriage, you can't have one without the other. If eliminating the initial array two-step, en passant is automatically out the window as impossible. Pawn is the only regular ''divergent'' piece-type, meaning capturing differently. Western Pawn, despite seeming complexity in descriptive algorithm, is actually  an over-all simplifier in obviating other compensating rules to keep everything balanced. What would be best alternative? [Gilman reference: http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSmanandbeast04:.]
Not Berolina, which creates weird ugly open files. Bare-bones Shogi Pawns are okay vis-a-vis the other Shogi pipsqueak pieces, but not vis-a-vis the genuine western articles, R, N, B. Provisionally I vote for, so long as 8-deep, the ironically 10-deep Centennial omni-Pawn, called there Steward and Quadra-Pawn, implemented once or twice before Centennial, as best alternative. The Carrera-era 17th-century Western Pawn, ramifies far back into the 1500s too some places in full form before permanent establishment. Also divergent, omni-Pawns are radical departure for moving sideways and backwards too at option; Centennial incorrectly allows initial two-step. Any alteration in Pawns only is by and large VARIANT of an original CV, not new CV in and of itself, by responsible consensus post-CV-proliferation era.

There were horses before carriages, and these days most people go around in
horseless carriages. So I don't think horse and carriage is the analogy
you want for how double Pawn moves and en passant are linked together.

EURASIAN PAWN. Pawn-types deserve definitely their own scrutiny. Gilman's reference
reflects 100-200 Pawn possibilities. One Pawn, Eurasian, captures north too
in simple addition. For Next Chess in and if 10x10, rate Eurasian Pawn as
about the best current example.  Eurasian Pawn recommends paucity of
rules-adjustment to effect, in principle of Ockham's Razor. Differently,
stereotypical 10x10 Pawns invoke all of (a) 3-step origination (b) en
passant complication (c) ever-optional two-step -- making a set of three
nuances inconvenient to keep in mind let alone implement by players. As
natural formation, it's a real candidate for conventionalization. 
Eurasian Pawn creates spaciousness 10x10, before and between which pieces
may pass. No way anymore contentedly passive orthogonal-forward placement-adjacency
without fear of attack, waiting things out. I rate Centennial omni-Pawn
best replacement for Western F.i.d.e. Pawn on 8x10. And Eurasian could as
well be provisional standard, where there has been none, 10x10. With
respect to the stereotypical tries, just face it: 3-step opening is ugly, ugly
and En Passant capture of a three-stepped Pawn now 2 spaces behind as
juvenile as it is ridiculous. Those latter two ''mini- Pawn-rules'' are
seemingly offhandedly injected into many a CV art-write-up's last
paragraph, obligatory as fixers; and they are ''maxi-ugly'' --
like this present closing capital sentence.

On a 10x10 with the Eurasian Pawn, where do you suggest the pawns set up,
on the second or third row?  I personally would like to say EITHER and add
the concept of multiple formations into the NextChess, so that we don't
develop stale opening books, while also not falling into having erratic set
up of shuffle.  I would say also players would be free to set up their
lines of pawns on either the second or third pawn, but restrict things.

The Eurasian Pawn and Next Chess are exercises so long as 1 billion
people are playing one CV on 64 squares and 100 os us have designed 1000s
nobody much plays. Eurasian conventionalized for 10x10 represents a
different way to design CVs rather than 1x1x1 to a million. The first CVer,
T.R. Dawson, was above designing even one CV. The 2 billion who know rules
of OrthoChess64 from China to Chile 99% know nothing of Alice Chess or any
other CV than Fischer's. Centennial may err giving omni-Pawn two-step
origination because of its Rank Two behind regular Pawns. On same 10x10
Eurasian Pawn has one potential to start Rank Three and become piece-like, an
advance force to speed development, being of near-Pawn value but
piece-characteristic. A good example of a Pawn-value piece is Centennial's own Spearman, 
http://www.chessvariants.org/large.dir/contest/cenchess.html. Low-value Spearman is not at all insignificant. 
I am getting interested temporarily in that
Pawn-piece interface, as in follow-up.