[ List Latest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
The reason why I named the rook + knight piece in Schoolbook a 'Marshall' instead of a 'Chancellor' is because the Archbishop is sometimes called a 'Cardinal' and I wanted the first letter of the name for the rook + knight piece to be an unambiguous one. 'C', IMHO, is for the Camel (1,3 colorbound knight).
- Sam
The piece names used in this game are not new to this game. I have used the same piece names in many other variants, including Cavalier Chess, Grand Cavalier Chess, Fusion Chess, Metamorph Chess, Assimilation Chess, and all hybridizations of these last three games with each other or with Chessgi. Furthermore, the name of Marshall was introduced by Capablanca before he began using Chancellor, and it has also been used by Christian Freeling for Grand Chess.
Its just plain fun to invent new names for pieces, although i think archbishop and chancellor are the names that will stick. Please note it is common to call a rook a castle, and a knight a horse. Check out Mid-evil chess for a new twist I added to capablanca like games. I call the amazon the Prince, or the 'Mean Queen'
Greg Strong wrote on Sat, Aug 5, 2006 09:33 PM UTC:I like the game, and I do not consider the family of Capablanca-like games to be over-crowded, as there are so many good arrangements of these pieces, each with its own flavor. The only thing I don't like is the use of the name 'Paladin' for the Archbishop. Paladin begins with 'P', same as the Pawn, requiring a different notaiton. Additionally, I understand that everyone is not going to agree on the same piece naming, but I don't see why the four recently invented variants, Grotesque Chess, Ladorean Chess, Univers Chess, and Schoolbook all must have different namings from one another, and different from the common Capablanca names.
5 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.
I'm not sure how much better this setup is than in the case of Grotesque Chess, if at all.
In Univers Chess in case of, say, a Double-King's pawn opening analogue, the opposing Archbishops might be able to oppose/trade each other off without much advantage to either player - either that, or the other player may be able to develop a bishop to the 1st/10th rank, to bother/frustrate an Archbishop (using a reverse symmetry re-positioning of the setup would not help much either, perhaps). Also, the position of the knights on their files in the setup gives them only two squares that would usually be good to be developed to (compared to if the knights were one file closer to the centre each, as in Grotesque Chess).
That's the case in orthodox chess, too, but in case a player manages to castle on either flank during a game, it might be good sometimes to have the option of developing the knight to the third rank on the 3rd/8th file, in front of the king, with an eye on possibly helping to protect the king in a number of ways.
There just might be a repellant effect on potential players when they see the bishops adacent to the rooks (on the 2nd/9th files) in CVs like Univers or Grotesque Chess - so far either variant has been played less than 10 times on Game Courier (plus, Ladorean Chess has yet to be played). I'm not sure such a sentiment is fully justified, as the bishops need not be traded off inevitably, and the bishops can be developed alternatively to the 1st/10th files instead - however, arranging the development of a bishop just might make castling on that flank less safe due to a pawn(s) being moved where the king will reside.
https://www.chessvariants.com/large.dir/grotesque.html
https://www.chessvariants.com/large.dir/ladorean_chess.html