Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

~~Later~~ ⇩Reverse Order⇧ ~~Earlier~~

Doppleganger Chess. Pieces and their doppelgangers are connected for capture and promotion! (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]

💡📝Gary Gifford wrote on Sun, Apr 29, 2007 12:01 AM UTC:

Hello Abdul: I went to edit the page, but I see it is one that I don't have editing privileges for. So I will contact Jeremy in regard to an update. In the mean time, if you wanted to make a Zillions program of the newer variant, I'd have no objections. Regards, Gary

Abdul-Rahman Sibahi wrote on Sat, Apr 28, 2007 09:12 PM UTC:

I wouldn't publish my proposal in a different page. It's too small to matter .. Please feel free if you want to add it to the page.

💡📝Gary Gifford wrote on Sat, Apr 28, 2007 08:28 PM UTC:

Abdul-Rahman Sibahi, Thank you for commenting. Your idea would certainly work and I did think about it back when the game first appeared. The way I imagined it was simple, accomplished by linking pawns: K and Q pawns, both B Pawns, both Knight Pawns, both Rook Pawns... each a Doppelganger to their 'linked' associate. Since Pawns change files from time to time, they would need an identifier to show Doppelganger relations.

I prefer the idea of more player control which exists in the current version. Note - the Doppelganger Pawns are 'not random' ... the rules state:

'If a pawn is captured, the player making the capture removes it plus any one other enemy pawn (capturer’s choice). If the removal of the second piece (or pawn) causes check to your opponent, that is fine. But you cannot capture a piece (or pawn) if removal of its counter part would put your King in check.'

As to which is the better concept (pre-determined Pawn-doppelganger or Player-selected Pawn Doppelganger), that probably is a matter of opinion, like comparing Chinese Chess and Korean Chess. On that call, I am in the minority.

Your idea is certainly logical, has merit, and would prove easier for programmers. I sort of like coming across games that computers do not yet play... but usually it is only a matter of time before they do.

I seem to recall seeing a set of pieces with different colors at the bases. Pawns of that design would work with your suggestion.

If you want-I will add the variant to Doppelganger and call it something like 'the Abdul-Rahman Sibahi Doppelganger Variant' and give you credit. You could modify the pawn Doppelganger aspect if desired, based on proximity. There are several different pawn-link possibilities. Just let me know. Or, if you'd like to create a separate page with your rules - as your variant of Doppelganger - I have no problem with that. It would need its own pre-set to keep the ratings aspect fair.

Thanks again, very much, for the comment. Best regards, Gary

Anonymous wrote on Sat, Apr 28, 2007 08:27 PM UTC:

I prefer the idea of more player control which exists in the current version. As to which is the better concept? That probably is a matter of opinion, like comparing Chinese Chess and Korean Chess. On that call, I am in the minority.

I seem to recall seeing a set of pieces with different colors at the bases. Pawns of that design would work with your suggestion.

Thanks again, very much, for the comment. Best regards, Gary

Abdul-Rahman Sibahi wrote on Sat, Apr 28, 2007 10:55 AM UTC:Good ★★★★

If the removal of the doppleganger pawn was automatic, (not random,) like choosing the closest piece to the captured piece or choosing the closest to the left hand corner, the game wouldn't necessarily be better, but it would be easier to implement in a chess program or a chess server (you have only to make the move, and the program will take care of the rest.)

Just a thought...

I should try this game someday.

💡📝Gary Gifford wrote on Fri, Jan 5, 2007 04:36 AM UTC:

Hello (zzo38) A. Black. Thanks for commenting. Yes, I just looked at your Communist Chess and then revisted my Doppelganger note from May of 2004. There I wrote: 'In the original game (the one that I awoke with) black pieces were doppelgangers relative to white pieces and visa versa. When you captured a piece both it and a matching one of yours was removed. Even promotions resulted in a promotion for your opponent.' It seems these rules would give us Communist Chess. My note continued: 'Material balance was maintained throughout the game, and it was very difficult to achieve victory. That game is a real workout and can be very frustrating. I changed the game so that each side had its own doppelgangers and by doing so created great opportunity for dynamic imbalance ... ' Anyway, I believe that you created the game independently. There are bound to be creative coincidences, especially considering the large number of variants that exist.

(zzo38) A. Black wrote on Fri, Jan 5, 2007 04:03 AM UTC:

The original game (the one that you awoke with) is almost exactly the same as a game I have invented called 'Communist Chess'. I invented that game before I even saw this page, but you posted this page before I invented that game. I just noticed it today. But I have played and won Communist Chess.

💡📝Gary Gifford wrote on Sun, Jul 9, 2006 02:03 PM UTC:

Antoine, many thanks for the quick fix to Doppelganger. The pre-set now allows the Doppelganger captures. Much appreciated.

Antoine Fourrière wrote on Sun, Jul 9, 2006 04:13 AM UTC:

I have simply erased the pre-game, pre-move, post-move and post-game fields.

💡📝Gary Gifford wrote on Sun, Jul 9, 2006 02:13 AM UTC:

I was wondering if one of the Editors could turn the 'Rule Enforcement'
OFF for Doppelganger Chess.  As the pre-set is now, Doppelgangers can't
be captured as it violates chess code.  

Or is there a way to get around the code?  What I need to do is play e5xf6
and also remove a pawn on g6 (the doppelganger) on the same turn.

Thanks.

JGG wrote on Thu, Jun 22, 2006 05:02 PM UTC:

'....if anyone played that way it would appear only that a chess game was in progress, not a Doppelganger Chess game...' In fact, the seemingly ordinary chess game would have been a doppelganger for your variant! It might also be fun to play Big Chess using Doppelganger Chess rules. Or Giant Chess, even, but I'll pity you if one of your Devs gets taken! (Because that would mean you'd lose both your Devs!) Or, appropriately enough, how about with one of the double chess variants?

💡📝Gary Gifford wrote on Thu, Jun 22, 2006 04:19 PM UTC:

I happened to look over a copy of my Doppelganger Chess graphic and a
question slammed into my head.  'Has anyone ever played Doppelganger
Chess?'  The idea of a pre-set never occurred to me because the game can
be played on a regular chess board... but, if anyone played that way it
would appear only that a chess game was in progress, not a Doppelganger
Chess game.

So, to make Doppelganger Chess available for rated games and game logs, I
assigned a pre-set to it.  The following link should work until the
submission makes it into the system.  If anyone has played and has the
game score (move list)... I'd love to see it.  Thanks.  -gkg

/play/pbm/play.php?game%3DDoppelganger+Chess%26settings%3DJPG-Alfaerie

💡📝Gary Gifford wrote on Wed, May 19, 2004 04:23 PM UTC:

Mr. Moussambani, Great question. The answer is like that of the pawn
situation: Thus,for illustration...
Four rooks are in play. A rook is captured by the opponent.  The
opponent now removes any one the three remaining enemy rooks.(capturer's
choice).

As Mr. Moussambani stated, 'It's much more simple, and a logical
extension of the pawn capture rule...'

Another question, that might arise is: could a King ever move into check
by capturing a Rook that was protected by another Rook?  Or, for example,
take a Knight that was protected by another Knight?  Yes.  Because the
King is instantly capturing 2 pieces, thereby 'getting out of check' by
actually moving into check for an instant.  Technically the King is moving
out of check.

Moussambani wrote on Wed, May 19, 2004 11:37 AM UTC:

This game looks interesting. I have a question when promotions have
happened. Say my rooks are still in play when I promote a pawn and his
doppleganger to rook, so now I have four rooks in play. If a rook is then
captured by my opponent, then what should happen?

If he must take original rook with original rook, and promoted rook and
promoted rook with promoted rook, that may require extra bookkeeping. On
the other hand, it could be any other rook, capturer's choice.

I like this last option best. It's much more simple, and a logical
extension of the pawn capture rule, which now would read 'If a player
captures a piece of which more than two are in play...'

So what is the intended ruling?