Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Hi Mats, 

your definition of 'Elk Chess' generates an asymmetry in the
possibilities for the initial position:  White can develop immediately its
elk on the king side with a knight move to the row in front of its pawn,
Black cannot do so.  At the queen side the situation is inverse.

You could reach easily symmetry by a little change in the rules:
 - for white swap the colors when the elk has to move as knight/rook;
 - for the black elk let the definition as it is.
(Also a converse definition would be possible, depending at which wing you
prefer a quick development of this piece.)

Shortly you could summarize this new rule as follow:
The Elk moves at squares of its own color like a rook, at squares of 
the opposite color as a knight (or the converse regulation). 

Alfred Pfeiffer

Mats, I have to rehabilitate you partially because I read now that in the
anglophone countries the problem friends use the denotation Moose for
that piece which was named as elk in the cited source (from Germany),
look e.g. to 'http://homepage.ntlworld.com/gpjnow/VC.htm'.

But here are fairy chess definitions for some others of your animals:

'Elephant': Queen+Nightrider, used also in some game variants, 
            e.g. 'Wolf Chess'
            (http://www.chessvariants.org/large.dir/wolf.html)

'Mammoth':  moves like a rook but only if it can capture
            (from A. M. Dickins: A guide to fairy chess.)

Alfred Pfeiffer

Alfred, I don't think it matters much that names sometimes collide. If I
search the Internet, and check the Encyclopedia of Chess Variants, then I
will find that all the good names are already taken. If the name
'Scorpion' had already been used by an established chess variant, then I
would have chosen another name. But the 'Scorpion King' is more of a
phantasy piece,it's fun, but will surface very rarely. I did not know
about the 'Elch', but it seems like it hasn't even been implemented in
a game(?). Then it's no problem at all. I can employ that name for a
piece that is likely to be more successful than the 'Elch'.

In chess it is common rule that it's not the first inventor of a
variation that has the right to the variation name. The variation receives
the name of the chessplayer who has employed the variation, analysed it,
played it, and put down a great deal of work in it. Anybody could invent
opening variations 'en masse'. This does not mean that they belong to
this chess player and that ECO should relate his name. It's the same
thing with chess pieces. Anybody could invent chess pieces. But that's
not enough. He has to employ them in a game construct, etc. And when it
has become established and well-known, then the piece name is fully
established, too. I don't think anybody would name their new pieces
Chancellor or Archbishop, for instance.

Hello Mats,

why do you not use an other name for your new piece?
'Elk' (German 'Elch')is already the name for a known fairy chess
piece
(look at 'http://www.softdecc.com/pdb/pieces.pdb?langt=EN&langn=EN').

There is already a lot of confusion because of the existence of
different names for same pieces, but the situation becomes extrem
mistakably by using same names for different pieces.

Alfred Pfeiffer

P.S.: This remark is valid also for other new pieces you introduced,
e.g. 'http://www.chessvariants.org/piececlopedia.dir/scorpion.html'
describes an other 'Scorpion', and maybe also the name 'Mammoth' is
already used by fairy chess composers (but I do not know their 
definition).

The replacement of the knights with elks basically *had* to work, as would
the rook-elk swap [similar pieces in the same spot]. The replacement of
bishops by elks is a bit cludgier, but gives a hint of a theme. Replace
the bishops with elks and the queen with a chancellor (R+N). Give the king
a knight escape move instead of castling. Now you've got a bishopless game
that is fairly close to FIDE in power - if your elk valuation is correct,
within roughly a pawn's worth of power. [This might make for a decent
CWDA army.] It may not be the best of games, but it's a coherently themed
game, and showcases the elk equally as well as the FIDE version. You'd
offer your 'Elk Chess' as a training game for the elk, and a themed game
as the 'actual' variant. This way you're sneaking 2 games in under the
guise of 1, and you've done what you wanted. You showcased the piece, and
you got the alternate FIDE game into the mix. But you've also taken that
one step more and designed a game as well as a piece. I believe you
commented somewhere that you thought the elk and scorpion would work well
together. Come up with another new piece or three, [maybe the
squire/jumping general/mammoth could fit in] and give us a new game. Of
course, if I had some really cool new pieces that worked great in FIDE, I
wouldn't listen to some old guy who wants it done another way either. ;-)
Keep the pieces coming anyhow. Enjoy

Doug, 
Yes, in the variant where Elks replace the rooks.
--Mats

Does the Elk do Queenside castling?

Joe, the evaluation of the Elk builds on tests with Zillions. Zillions
internal evaluation algorithm places its value between a knight and rook.
It is quite logical because it is not a knight *and* rook. It is a knight
*or* rook. Hence its value is the average of 3 and 5. However, as its
knight capabilities are reduced (it cannot jump to white squares) its
value should be less than 4. But the Elk's maneuverability makes its rook
capabilities more useful. This increases its value to around 4. I suppose
it's logical. It is true that I have   chosen the simple method of
exchanging a piece in the Fide setup. It is much easier to test a piece in
a well-known context. Moreover, the result happens to be quite fun and
interesting. New tactical and strategical aspects are introduced. But
please feel free to use the new pieces in more ambitious game constructs.
Due to its relative low evaluation it is a very useful piece. Comparatively, a 
Chancellor isn't very useful. Its value is so great so you can't use it very 
much, except exchanging it for an enemy Chancellor or queen. 
--Mats

A very interesting piece, but I'm not sure of its valuation at 4, exactly
midway between rook and knight. I admit it's a crippled chancellor, but
is it  reduced that much? I would suspect it's more powerful than a
guard, say, which is also valued at 4. And while the knight component is a
weaker piece, I'm not sure the elk should be valued at less than a rook.
I'd guess it in the 5-7 range. I'd think a player's tendency would be
to use the knight move to post the piece in an advantageous position for
the rook and let it passively exert power for a while. And I'd be
inclined to move it like a dabbabah, staying on black squares as much as
possible to get the greater power; just using the knight move to leap over
pieces to get in and out. Admittedly you've made the elk's knight
component colorbound - no elknight can attack white squares - but the rook
component can attack any square on the board. Can't see how it's not in
the neighborhood of 6. But then, I'm far from an expert :-) and have been
wrong before. And speaking of being wrong, would it be wrong for me to
suggest considering making a few themed pieces and creating a game around
them? You're very creative with pieces, but replacing 1 FIDE piece with
your new piece and playing from there is kind of just training you in
using the new piece. You are showcasing pieces rather than creating a
whole new game. Replace the knights with elks instead of the rooks -
another new game, with a little more power. Since the knight component is
colorbound, replace the bishops with elks and get a different game still.
This soon becomes unsatisfying; there are a zillion pieces out there which
can somehow fit, but it becomes a slightly different FIDE game rather than
a truly unique variant. Hey, don't sell your pieces short. Give them a
standout game to be in. 
Enjoy.