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 Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]

Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Earlier Reverse Order Later
[Subject Thread] [Add Response]
Michael Nelson wrote on Tue, Mar 2, 2004 04:15 PM UTC:
I've been experimenting with a Rococo/Ultima variant of my own. It uses
the 8x8 board and the following pieces from Rococo:

Long Leaper
Swapper
Immobilizer
King
Cannon Pawn

The Advancer and Withdrawer are replaced by a single Pushme-Pullyu and an
Archer is added. I have also added an FIDE Queen and a new piece: the
Shield-any piece adjacent to a friendly Shield is immune form capture (the
Shield itself is capturable).

I've also made some rule changes. Immobilizers do not immobilize each
other. Swappers cannot swap with each other (but can capture by mutual
destruction). Only one capture per turn is allowed--the Long Leaper can
make only one leap, and a Pushme-Pullyu can't both Advance and Withdraw
in the same turn.

The Archer is made more powerful. It can rifle-capture orthogonally or
diagonally any distance as long as some friendly piece is 1 or 2
(unobstructed) squares away orthogally or diagonally from the target. When
the target is 1 or 2 squares away from the Archer, no second piece is
needed.

An immobilized piece can spot for the Archer, just as an immobilized piece
can act as a mount for a Cannon Pawn.

I'm experimenting with the best setup and I need a catchy name. 

Playtesting so far indicated that this is a quite interesting game.

Comments?

Roberto Lavieri wrote on Tue, Mar 2, 2004 05:53 PM UTC:
The game may be good, but I dislike a bit a powerful Archer, I prefer the
weaker 1-Archer. Have you a ZRF available? (it is not necessary it is
depured, little bugs can be fixed later, first the tests looking the
better setup and calibrating pieces). I can make some tests on it. Have
you tried ULTIMATUM (the last version, but the page has not been closed
yet) and/or the proposed Rococo variant?. It is not easy give the best
thing on this theme, but one can explore and take a look of the diverse
ideas, good surprises arise every moment.

Peter Aronson wrote on Tue, Mar 2, 2004 06:22 PM UTC:
Hmm. I share Roberto's doubts about the long range Archer, but playtesting should prove or disprove those. I assume that the Pushme-Pullyu must make at least one capture if it can, or can it decline to capture any pieces? <p> I'm unconvinced that making Immobolizer's ignore each other is wise -- they have a tendency to dominate Rococo and Ultima without that weakness. <p> As for the name. Rococo is a bit of a pun on Ultima's original name of Baroque -- the Rococo style of architecture, painting and music followed the Baroque style of those things. Unfortunately, the Rococo style was followed by the Neo-Classical style, but a game named Neo-Classical or Neo-Classical Chess might imply something different than you want. I suppose you could call it 'Ornate', which is a modern meaning of both Rococo and Baroque. <p> I've recently encountered a new form of capture, in someone's attempted reconstruction of the Hopi board-game (not race game) of Totolopsi: capture by abandonment. It's sort of similar to capture by withdrawal, but different. A piece is captured by abandonment when an opposing piece with that power moves so to leave the captured piece with no opposing pieces adjacent to it. Odd, but it ought to be good for something.

Michael Nelson wrote on Wed, Mar 3, 2004 01:54 AM UTC:
I will send the current ZRF to Roberto and anyone else interested tonight.

Some rules clarifications:

1. A Pushme-Pullyu which withdraws from a piece must capture that piece;
it may not capture another piece by advance, it may not move to a square
where it would effect a capture by advance.

2. The Shield does not protect pieces from immobilization. 

3. A shield does not protect adjacent friendly pieces from swapping, but
it does protect against the Swapper's mutual annihilation capture.

4. An immobilzed Shield still protects adjacent friendly pieces form
capture.

5. An immobilized Archer may not shoot, though an immobilized piece may
spot for the archer.

The spotting rule makes a strong Archer but not as strong as an unlimited
range archer. Z vs. Z and Z vs. me testing indicate that it is playable.
Notice that it gets weaker in the endgame with fewer pieces available to
spot for it. This type of archer creates some interesting defensive
situations. The attcker's Archer moves in close to pick off some
pawns/pieces and the defender's Archer gets in position three squares or
so away where it can fire at the attacker (because it has a spot) and the
attacker can't fire back.

The Long Leaper is weaker than in Ultima with only a single leap and no
ring squares to prevent pieces from hiding on the edge. But it has a good
abitlity to push pieces to the edge where their mobility is reduced.

Playtesting of the Immobilizers don't immobilize each other rule seems to
indicate that the immobilizers don't become excessively stronger than in
Rococo. What does happen is that Immobilizer play become more fluid and
tactical.


The stonger Archers make a good counterweight to the stronger Immobilizers--the pieces it is freezing can act as spots for the Archer ot kill it from accross the board! 

I really love the Shield: while it obviously adds a strong defense, it is quite useful for attack as well by preventing counterattacks. This technique can be particualrly fruitful to support an attack on the Immobilizer.

Roberto Lavieri wrote on Thu, Mar 4, 2004 01:58 AM UTC:
Mike, I played two games against Zillions, and I´m going to continue the
tests in the next days. The game looks fine, but I´m still not convinced
about the great power of Archer. Well, Shield is a good moderator, but
Shield has some disadvantages when the game goes to ends with few pieces,
it is difficult avoid drawn games in many instances (is it a
disadvantage?, it depends on who is playing). The game play is nice, and
really different than in Rococo, tactics are usually more elaborated, it
has a very strange beauty. About a name, I suggest something around the
Baroque music theme, what about BACH, FUGUE or LARGO-?

Michael Nelson wrote on Thu, Mar 4, 2004 06:24 AM UTC:
Roberto,

Thank you for your kind comments.

With regard to endgames, the Shield is helpful to the weak side but can be
beaten. King and Immobilzer vs. King and Shield is a forced win--either
the King and Shield get immoilized (loss by stalemate), or the King gets
immobilized and the enemy King picks off the Shield--also a loss by
stalemate.

Against all opposing forces a King and Shield which must stay next to each
other are in extreme danger of losing by triple repetiton.

The general technique for King and X (where X is a piece that would win
vs. a lone King) vs. King and Shield is to set up a positon where the
Shield is captured by X and the lone King can't recapture. More analysis
and playing experience is needed to see how frequently this
can be forced.

King, X, and Y vs. King and Shield should pretty much always be a forced
win.

Of course. 'kill the Shield' combinations will be as much a mainstay of
the middlegame as 'kill the Immobilzer' combinations are.

Michael Nelson wrote on Thu, Mar 4, 2004 08:26 PM UTC:
After some internet research, I've chosen Roberto's suggestion of Fugue
as the name of the new game. While the fugue as a musical form originated
in the Baroque period, it continued through the Rococo period and into the
Classical period. Seems fine for a Rococo/Ultima blend. 

Classical Music's 'holy trinity' (J.S Bach, Mozart, Beethoven) have all
used the fugue form.

Michael Nelson wrote on Thu, Mar 4, 2004 09:11 PM UTC:
Had a very pretty Z vs Z game today. WHite had King, Pawn, Archer, nad
Shield against King and Long Leaper. King and Pawn huddled toghether on
the first rank while the Shield protected the Archer while it hunted down
the enemy King.

Roberto Lavieri wrote on Thu, Mar 4, 2004 11:38 PM UTC:
FUGUE : Nice and very adequated name!.  Armony, power, strange beauty and
brilliant complexity.

Michael Nelson wrote on Sat, Mar 6, 2004 12:11 AM UTC:
I will be building the webpage for Fugue over the next few days. The final
ZRF is ready if anyone wants it before then. (I'm already sending updates
to R. Laveri and M. Howe.)

10 comments displayed

Earlier Reverse Order Later

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.