You are on the backup site for Any posts, moves, or other changes you make here will not be permanent, because the pages and database from the main site will be backed up here every midnight EST. Additionally, things may not be working right, because this site is also a testbed for newer system software. So, if you are not here to test, develop, or merely read this site, you may want to change .org to .com in the navigation bar and go to the main site.

The Chess Variant Pages

[ 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

Later Reverse Order Earlier
Hybrids. Standard pieces combine and split. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
George Duke wrote on 2010-08-13 UTCGood ★★★★
Of the 20 or 30 clusters we can divide CVs into, Absorption Chess derivatives form a major one after number one Carrera-Birds. In the last comment here, Shvorin mentions two other derivatives, out of over a hundred members so far published, Confederation and Fusion. Some Absorption derivatives are part of a larger theme, or otherwise multifaceted, or rely on mechanism besides immediate capture for change of movement power; probably for example we include Pocket Mutation as subvariant of Absorption for the sake of complete classification into 2 or 3 dozen clusters. (In the full taxonomy, a given CV may be member of two clusters, but try to avoid three.) In Shvorin's preferred embodiment, Hybrid same-side units same-type may even coalesce, he answers Strong in another of these 6 comments. That could be a factor in Stalemate or easily-imaginable convenience, such as getting two Rooks to the other side on one square, where they then re-divide.

Artem Shvorin wrote on 2005-05-19 UTC
I see that in Fusion Chess (like in Confederation and unlike in Hybrids) a compound piece can split only by moving into an empty square.

Charles Gilman wrote on 2005-05-19 UTCGood ★★★★
Another way to look at this is as a rex exclusive version of Fusion Chess. In some ways it is closer than that variant to FIDE Chess as the King cannot escape check through fusion with another piece.

Artem Shvorin wrote on 2005-05-18 UTC
Recently I found a similar variant: <a href=''>Confederation</a> . The main difference is that in Confederation a piece cannot leave the hybrid while neither capturing nor forming a new hybrid with another piece. This restriction reduced the combinative power of hybrids and the game seems (for me ;) ) less interesting than Hybrids.

Artem Shvorin wrote on 2005-05-18 UTC
> What does it mean that equal pieces can form a hybrid?
It is possible to couple (for example) a pair of rooks. If there are rooks
on a1 and a2 it is possible to move one rook from a1 to a2 (I suggest the
following notation: Ra1^a2, or breafly R^a2, marking any 'hybridizing'
by '^' symbol).  As a result a hybrid Rook+Rook appears (designated by
'RR' symbol).  The worth of such homogeneous hybrids is dubious, though
it may be useful to bring a couple of slow units (knights or guards)
across the board; also this maneuver aids to concentrate pressure to a
certain point in blockaded position...

> Can a piece be a hybrid of more than two components?
The rule 2.3 says no.  It is noted that this rule is a subject to discuss.
 I thought about attack/defense balance, it seemed that hybrids are rather
strong (note that Rook+Bishop is a little bit stronger than ortodox Queen,
and usualy you have several such attackers) while King is too vulnerable,
so I decided to restrict attacking possibilities by rules 2.3 and 1 (Queen
is replaced by Guard).

Greg Strong wrote on 2005-05-18 UTC
Iteresting. What does it mean that equal pieces can form a hybrid? Can a piece be a hybrid of more than two components?

6 comments displayed

Later Reverse Order Earlier

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.