Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
Ok, this change has been made.
I wrote this page 24 years ago and I included this:
A variant
Even the Martians have variants on their own type of chess. According to Burroughs, the older version of Jetan had Odwars instead of Fliers that could not jump over intervening pieces.
I can't find where I had taken this information. It is simply wrong. Burroughs did not write this, actually he wrote that the Odwar and the Flier have the same power and move. It is just a different name for the SAME piece.
Letting this wrong information is confusing a lot of people. I cannot modify this page myself, so I beg an editor to simply remove this small paragraph which is incorrect. Thanks
Late comer to the discussion here. Regarding the piece values, there are many takes on this. I list most of the ones I know about in my recent ERBzine article about jetan. Follow the link below, and scroll about two thirds down the page to the appendices.
Any idea about piece values int this game :)?
Hmm, the HTML <div> element with the floating format doesn't look such a good idea in a comment posting as it is in an actual article with a lot of text.
Also, when two diagrams are on the same web page, they interfere with each other. The Metamachy diagram is now not processed at all, and only its (reformatted) description is shown. And the Jetan diagram fails to display the pieces. When you click the 'View' links to see the postings in isolation, the diagram displays OK.
This will be hard to fix. Both the diagrams have the same id="diagram", which the JavaScript uses to acces the description and generate the result, but accessing an element by id only accesses the first one of that id. I don't know if it is even possible to ask it to do smething with the second element with the same id. If it is, it should be possible to at least have the script construct the static start image of all diagrams.
BTW, the bright square colors of the Jetan diagram make it rather difficult to recognize the highlighting of the piece moves, however. It is possible to add a specification startShade=#...... to have an alternative for the darkShade that is used before the diagram is clicked. That way the diagram can be bright when seen as a static picture, but reverts to less dominant colors as soon as you start to display piece moves. No such alternative for the lightShade, however. Because I assumed it would always be pale enough by itself.
Just putting this diagram out there. It assumes that the panthan can go diagonally backwards, just as the gryphon can skip the rook move. I also had to make the "escape move" on available on the intial move of the princess. The pieces are white and black like standard chess, but the board is orange and black.
Worst game ever!!!! Yes,the idea is good, but i guess, Burroughs was a bad chess player. It's just not possible to avoid a draw! The fliers will just get traded (better were the odwars of the "earlier" game) - this game is a flaw. At least with this rules it's just not playable.
i think the rules are pretty clear, layman and easily work without any modification and am surprised that so many people, who seem familiar with so many gaming dynamics (that i am ignorant of for the most part) are so thrown and have so many questions and misunderstandings about this profoundly simple and highly entertaining game. read the appendix as written and enjoy a classic themed variant on jasoomian chess. burroughs also explained the "historical" significance of orange and black pieces and the moves of the odwar and princess are in no way complicated beyond their english written value. i think people are splitting hairs in the extreme.
I'm confused. A leap possibility gives another square? Ex.: a piece in a1, blocked by a piece in a2, leaps the piece and moves 3 or leaps and moves 2? Thanks.
Also, one item of note: The preset differs from the rules in placement of the princess and chiefs. I am not sure how much this affects the game itself, but thought it an item worth pointing out.
Since it is suggested in the rules that forms of wagers are involved in Jetan, I often view the game similar to Poker in that it also has many variations. Also the application of wagers greatly changes the dynamics of the game. That being draws are no longer considered a negative but often a desirable outcome.
If anyone who has read this book or series of books, by Edgar Rice Burroughs, and thinks that this game is a representation of a war between the yellow and black races of Mars. That is totally wrong as far as I'm concerned. This game was invented by E.R.B. so that there would be an analog to chess and i don't know why he chose black and orange for the color pieces. If you read all of the books,(at least the first five), you would have read that the yellow race disappeared thousands of years ago and the only struggle that the black race had was with the Therns who were WHITE and wore yellow wigs. Before book #3 the yellow races was a lost race just like the blacks were a lost race until book #2.
Now as to why in book#5 there is no flier, in this game is because the city has none and no contact with the outside world except for the various raids that they conduct. They are a very hidebound culture and still believe in ghosts and supernatural creatures. They don't use fliers so why would their games have them. They use a piece called an odwar. it has the same movements. I'm sure that in the modern red races' past they had the same piece but they just renamed it to reflect the ever changing culture and to reflect on the significience of the flier on their everyday lives. Please forward any remarks on my opinion to [email protected] i'd welcome any comments.
Fergus, You might wish to check out the links to pages where I cover all the various rules of Jetan, including wagering and dueling. ERB specifically noted that Jetan was to be played with wagers, similar to Poker. I've found that this makes the game much more enjoyable, particularly when each captured piece is given a specific value.
I just finished reading The Chessmen of Mars today, and I'm pleased that this page gives the interpretation of the rules that best fits the text.
I have noticed one contradiction between the second chapter and appendix. The second chapter says that Warriors move 'straight in any direction, or diagonally, two spaces', whereas the appendix says the Warrior moves '2 spaces straight in any direction or combination.' In this case, I assume that Burroughs was being more careful in the appendix, which was offered for readers who wanted to play the game, and that the appendix rule is the accurate one. I think he really meant 'or any combination' where he wrote 'or diagonally,' since he included this part in other piece descriptions, omitted it for the Warrior, the phrase is in an awkward place, and he could have described it more similarly to the Chief's move if it really moved both straight and diagonally. Besides this, the appendix description makes the Warrior to the Padwar as the Rook is to the Bishop, or almost as the (non-leaping) Dwar is to the (leaping) Flier, and this makes more sense.
As for Thoats, the appendix and second chapter do not contradict, but the appendix accidently left out the leaping ability of the Thoat move, and the second chapter fills us in on this information.
As for the interpretation given here of the Panthan move, I think it makes sense to interpret backward as any backward direction, given that he only said 'but not backward' when he could have said 'but not straight backward.' So I agree with Jean-Louis Cazaux's interpretation but for a different reason than he gives, though his reason is a good one too.
23 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.
I would just like to mention that there is now a book about jetan, written by me and published by McFarland. Follow the link to learn more. I would welcome reviews of the book posted to the book's page.