Check out Symmetric Chess, our featured variant for March, 2024.


[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ]
[ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ]
[ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]

Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

LatestLater Reverse Order EarlierEarliest
Pocket Mutation Chess. Take one of your pieces off the board, maybe change it, keep it in reserve, and drop it on the board later. (8x8, Cells: 64) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
💡📝Michael Nelson wrote on Mon, Sep 15, 2008 10:56 PM UTC:
If a piece is to be mutated, this must be done on the same turn as it is pocketed. Thereafter, the piece may remain in the pocket as long as desired.

Matthew Kyle wrote on Thu, Aug 14, 2008 04:26 AM UTC:Good ★★★★
This would be a great game to play, but having all of those nightrider blends is too complicated. Otherwise, is there a set number of turns that a piece must stay in the pocket to be mutated?

George Duke wrote on Fri, Nov 16, 2007 06:15 PM UTC:Poor ★
Having played Pocket Mutation several times within Game Courier, I consider it very Poor. Pocket Mutation would get no following outside of CVPage-type insiders mostly adhering to prolificism(coined word). We realize of course Pocket Mutation is one of the couple most played games(What, 30 game scores? 50?) and voted into Game Courier Tournament #3 presently being played out. However, the dynamics of going back and forth to reach rank 8(1) over and over, in order to promote and re-promote to the next level, I have repeatedly found really, really inferior even pathetic. Not to mention the accumulating number of piece-types horrendous to keep track of, cutting into planning. One of CVPage's very worst in playability.

Jeremy Good wrote on Sun, Aug 12, 2007 11:37 AM UTC:
Well, pocketing rooks and turning them into nightriders doesn't necessarily give one side an advantage. Mike Nelson wrote in the rules that white can't be the first to pocket a piece. I believe pocketing a rook and turning it into a nightrider may give Black an elegant means of overcoming White's first move advantage by fighting for the center. White must cover the c5 and f5 squares to prevent fork on rook and queen or fork on rook and king. This allows Black to vie for the center immediately by contesting the e4 or d4 pawns. There are other approaches possible some of which Oleg and I have been exploring. For example, one can fianchetto one's bishops as a way of preventing these forks... Pocket Mutation Chess as is has its charms and strengths. It can entail its own set of forcing moves but that doesn't necessarily make the openings inferior to standard FIDE. If anything, I'd suggest the openings are likely superior since they seem to entail more balancing opportunities for Black.

David Paulowich wrote on Sat, Aug 11, 2007 11:24 PM UTC:

We still have 7 games of Pocket Mutation Chess scheduled in Game Courier Tournament #3. These should answer some questions.


Andreas Kaufmann wrote on Sat, Aug 11, 2007 09:42 PM UTC:
Just try a game with Jeremy (chose white and DON'T make rook->'nightrider in pocket' move early in the game) and you will see for yourself... Still, I think the game is balanced since white can prevent early forks by black nightrider and have time to pocket nightrider from rook as well. The only problem with this game is a lack of variety in the opening, since the majority of the game starts with pocketing nightrider.

Joe Joyce wrote on Thu, Aug 9, 2007 03:16 PM UTC:
I think this is an excellent game as is, although I am eager to see Mike's new piece sets. [Great to see you back, Mike!] This is also such an excellent game concept that's it's almost impossible to resist speculating about different pieces and piece sets; 'Alternate Pockets' can easily become as varied as Betza's Different Armies, in its own twisted way. And I suspect the 'Mutant Armies' can be at least as difficult to balance as the Different Armies. But I'm sure some of us can have fun trying.

On the nightrider vs rook question, what are the weaknesses of pocketing the opposing rook's pawn after a rook is pocketed and mutated to NN? This threatens RxP, then R-R8 on a following move. The rook is not a bad piece in PM, it pins pieces and projects power along a line very well. The nightrider has a different job, leaping around, forking pieces, and generally making a nuisance of itself. But, a player can do a pretty fair job of covering the back few rows against knight attacks well into midgame, no? If that's so, then the NN 'avantage' is gone from the early game. What's so overwhelming about the NN that it is necessary to change a rook to one?

Jeremy Good wrote on Thu, Aug 9, 2007 02:36 PM UTC:
I'm very interested in Andreas's most intriguing suggestion that a class might exist between what are currently classes three and four and his idea that a nightrider in this game may be worth a pawn more than a rook but a pawn less than a cardinal. I agree that this should be investigated further. Of course, the relative desirability of cardinal to nightrider in this game hinges in large part on their abilities to promote.

Andreas Kaufmann wrote on Wed, Aug 8, 2007 08:00 PM UTC:
I agree with Jeremy that nightrider is more valuable than rook in this
game. May be its value is somewhere between rook and cardinal:
* rook - 5 pawns
* nightrider - 6 pawns
* cardinal - 7 pawns.
So, moving all nightrider-combined pieces one class up will probably
improve this game. In any case, this will avoid that most of the game
start with rook->nightrider pocketing as of now. Certainly, some
play-testing is needed to see if really there are situations where you
will prefer nightrider over cardinal.

Other possible alternatives:
1) Add a new piece class between classes 3 and 4 and move nightrider and 
SuperRook there. 
2) Remove nightrider-combined pieces completely to simplify the game and
make it more strategic.

Jeremy Good wrote on Thu, Jul 26, 2007 08:43 PM UTC:
Hi, Michael.

I'm very excited to know that you plan to do more work on Pocket Mutation Chess.

I love Pocket Mutation Chess very much and the 'Excellent' rating I gave it earlier still holds for me. I'm in no way disillusioned. I would really like to see an expanded piece set, rather than alternate piece sets. Joe Joyce believes (and he's obviously quite right) that many short range pieces can compete well against the longer range ones. As evidence, he proffers 'Shatranjian Shooters' CDA and even has a hard time paring down the short range pieces enough to be soft enough to compete against the FIDEs. In other words, short range pieces can compete very effectively against rider pieces. Those who favor short range pieces can enjoy playing against those who favor longer range ones.

I see that you're already committed to a project but I also have talked about wanting to work on a version of Pocket Mutation Chess variant, recently on the chessvariants yahoogroup. This was in response to an email written by Joe Joyce in which he says that Pocket Mutation Chess is his 'favorite chess variant.' Joe there describes it beautifully as a 'fantasy variant' of 'Chess with Changing Armies.'

I propose having more classes, including one or two below (!) pawn (e.g., spacious wazir and lame dabbabas -- of course to be able to put such pieces on the board, you would have to start with one or two very weak ones) and two or three above Amazonrider.

Also, I favor having more pieces in each class, at least five per class. For example: In class 1, there are at least a few more types of pawns you could have, the most obvious ones that come to mind are chinese pawns and berolina pawns.

Thinking it over, I would really like to see nightriders put into Class 4. Then, a nightrider could only come on the board after a Class 3 piece gets to the eighth rank. Being able to pocket your rooks and change them into nightriders immediately really forces your opposing player to protect their bishop five squares (c5, f5 for white, c4, f4 for black).

Likewise, I would shift Cardinalrider into Class 6 (othwerwise queen could immediately turn into cardinalrider), therefore Chancellorrider and Supercardinalrider into Class 7, etc.

There might even be some classes of pieces subtly different enough to fit in between some of the classes you have already.

Obviously this is a variant where the relative values of the pieces matters tremendously. And therein lies much of its appeal because the relative values of pieces is already of paramount importance to any true chess enthusiast.

Michael, email me, please, if you're interested in discussing these things with me more. (I hope you will.)


💡📝Michael Nelson wrote on Thu, Jul 26, 2007 05:44 PM UTC:
I'm working on a couple of additional piece sets for PM. One is part of the Short Range Project and the other eliminates Nightriders and provides additional enhancements. In both cases I expect a more strategic, less explosive game.

I am in no way dissatisfied with the classic piece set, I just think providing some alternatives will be interesting for players who like the game concept but would prefer a different feel.

When I have them worked up I will amend the game page and submit a new ZRF.

David Paulowich wrote on Wed, Jul 25, 2007 11:19 PM UTC:
Even in FIDE Chess, I like to play 1.d4 and 2.e3 with the White pieces. 
In PMChess I may also pocket the Bishop on (c1), changing it to a Knight. 
My style of play does not leave many holes for Nightriders to exploit.

Jeremy Good wrote on Wed, Jul 25, 2007 02:16 PM UTC:
I think Greg Strong's point of view about the nightrider has changed 180 degrees since then after some playtesting with me.

David Paulowich wrote on Wed, Jul 25, 2007 01:59 PM UTC:

At various times Joe Joyce, Greg Strong and myself have stated that it may be unwise to start the game by pocketing a Rook and changing it to Nightrider. As Greg once pointed out, the Nightrider is most powerful when you are holding it in the pocket, but this means that you cannot use the pocket for any other purpose while you are waiting.

Also, I am a big fan of the SuperBishop (Dragon Horse), which is the most powerful [Class 3] piece in 'normal' chessvariants, that do not allow dropping pieces. See this game - 287 days ago for a Nightrider and a SuperBishop working together to win the game. On the other hand, in [Class 5] I prefer the CardinalRider (Unicorn) to the SuperCardinal (which Roberto Lavieri praises in his 2005-04-19 comment). We are a long way from reaching a concensus on piece values in this excellent game.


Jeremy Good wrote on Tue, Jul 24, 2007 12:28 PM UTC:
I've been playing a lot of Pocket Mutation Chess games and I have concluded that a nightrider is worth so much more than a rook in this game because of its greater ability to traverse to the eighth rank where it can then promote. So I would favor moving the nightrider to Class 4. Or, possibly even to Class 5 (!) and move the nightrider compounds into Class 6. [Added note: It may seem preposterous to think a nightrider could be equal to a queen, but in this game, access to the 8th rank is such a critical factor and the nightrider may have equal chances of getting to the 8th rank.] I would move the Nightrider compounds into Class 6 regardless. [Added note: And push all the other nightrider compounds to the next class over]

David Paulowich wrote on Wed, Jan 17, 2007 03:45 PM UTC:
The SuperAlibaba (WFAD) and the SuperKnight (WFN) are interesting short range pieces that should fit in Class 4. Perhaps one of these would be enough, and another long range piece could be chosen to increase Class 4 to four pieces, matching Class 5. I proposed something like this back on 2004-08-28.

Jeremy Good wrote on Wed, Jan 17, 2007 02:45 PM UTC:

Yes, maybe expanding the piece types (and classes) would allow tactics to overwhelm strategy.

Your discussion suggests an idea to me, which may characterize either this variant or one similar to it. It is the idea of the wizard's duel, like the one Merlin had against Madam Mim in the movie Sword in the Stone, where they change into different animals, each appropriate to do combat against the other.

Note: Michael Nelson also invented an excellent variant called Wizard's War as it so happens. It doesn't increase greatly the kind of pieces and the wizards aren't themselves chameleons, but they are interesting generator pieces.


Greg Strong wrote on Wed, Jan 17, 2007 10:59 AM UTC:
Yes, definitely a great game - (I won't rate it here, because I've
already provided an excellent rating previously.)

I am not sure that it is a good idea to add more pieces, though.  Going
too far in that direction sacrafices strategy for tactics, with a player
looking through all the pieces for the one that attacks just the right
combination of squares.  Then one would have to pay very defencively,
always keeping all pieces protected, lest he open himself up to a viscious
fork by some strange piece, like a knight+alfilrider...

Abdul-Rahman Sibahi wrote on Tue, Jan 16, 2007 05:53 AM UTC:
They're mentioned earlier in the comments. the SuperKnight is knight+king .. SuperNightrider is nightrider+king. I would also add wazir and ferz combinations.

Jeremy Good wrote on Mon, Jan 15, 2007 10:21 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★

One of the best variants, certainly and Michael Nelson, I think, is also one of the best variant designers.

I would like to see an expanded (more complete) list of pieces added to the classes.

Also, maybe an extension for some of the more powerful pieces, as with tripunch pieces and cylindrical / toroidal pieces? Would be fun to have classes 9 and even 10.

Abdul, can you please tell me what you mean by superknight and supernightrider?

Just want to know.


Abdul-Rahman Sibahi wrote on Mon, Jan 1, 2007 06:47 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
SuperKnight and SuperNightRider should be added to the main list in classes 4 and 5 respectively. It is a sensible expansion omitted for who-knows-why reasons!! Addition of Cylindrical and Toroidal pieces can be nasty !! (The rook will only upgrade by a class or half a class.. but bishops and knight and nightriders and super pieces can jump two or three classes, that's for cylinderical.)

Tony Quintanilla wrote on Mon, Jan 2, 2006 07:07 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
Well deserved, Mike. Congratulations!

💡📝Michael Nelson wrote on Mon, Jan 2, 2006 06:41 PM UTC:
I am most honored that Pocket Mutation Chess was selected as the newest
Recognized Chess Variant and the voted Recognized Variant of the Month the
first time out.

Clearly PM is my finest creation but I never imagined it would join such
august company in under three years.

💡📝Michael Nelson wrote on Tue, May 10, 2005 03:47 PM UTC:
The last comment was mine, I forget to put in my user id.

Anonymous wrote on Tue, May 10, 2005 03:46 PM UTC:
Thanks to Joe and Roberto for your comments. Roberto's comment about
drawishness is true with regard to a certain type of middlegame--the
complex middlegame where both sides find launching an attack too
dangerous.

The endgame however is not drawish at all--virtually all endgames are
decisive. King vs anything is a win for the stronger side--you just drop,
promote, drop promote until you have enopugh force for a mate. The lone
King can't defend the whole back rank. This being true, many times a
numerical advantage in pieces can be translated into a win (whether or
not
it is a meterial advantage).

An example: often the simplest way to win King, Queen, and Knight vs King
and Rook is to exchange the Queen for the Rook, which is a draw in FIDE.

25 comments displayed

LatestLater Reverse Order EarlierEarliest

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.