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
Shatranj Kamil X. Shatranj Kamil, with new pieces from Jetan, Shogi and Xiangqi. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Greg Strong wrote on 2020-08-02 UTC

Interactive diagram added to page.

It rules stalemate a win, as it should, but does not contain the additional rule that stalemate is a draw when you are stalemating with only a lone king.  But I agree with H.G. that this is an unnecessary rule:

The Diagram would not make the exception that stalemating with a lone King is a draw. But this seems a silly rule anyway. The only practical case I know where a bare King delivers stalemate is in defending against promotion of a Rook Pawn, preventing the supporting King to step away from the edge. But that only works if the strong side chooses to stalemate himsef by pushing the Pawn. You cannot force him to do that. The rule is as pointless as an extra rule that a checkmate in KNNK would count as a draw in orthoChess.

I did add this rule to the Game Courier preset for completeness but I am not concerned that the diagram doesn't do it.

Greg Strong wrote on 2020-07-24 UTC

I cleaned up the HTML, replaced the board image with one generated by the diagram designer, and added more up-to-date information about computer play options. I didn't add an interactive diagram yet, because there is stuff I'd need to figure out, (like how to make the Ferz promote), but would like to do so. If someone wants to whip up a working diagram I'll include it.

Interesting note: I was unable to edit this page through the user-interface because the form that is embedded in the Notes section interferes with the edit submission form. I'm not sure what code to add to isolate the form so it doesn't interfere. For now, in order to change this page, it is necessary to first go into SQL and wipe out the contents of the Notes section (preserve it first!).

Joe Joyce wrote on 2007-04-19 UTC
A thought-provoking comment, Mats, so I did some looking. XiangQi has 32 pieces on 90 points, for a 36% starting piece density. Shatranj Kamil X has 44 pieces on 100 squares, 44% starting density, so it is more crowded, with about 25% more pieces on board, and the SKX cannons are behind all the other pieces - plus to XQ. But the board has 1 more file [11% increase] for the 2 cannons to operate on, which mitigates this a bit - plus to SKX. Further, while the cannons in XiangQi are forward of the other pieces, they are behind a pawn row that's only 55% filled, and there is no pawn in front of a cannon to start, unlike SKX. To effectively use the cannons in either game requires maneuvering - even. The additional pieces in SKX will give the cannons more opportunities to capture as the game goes on, so they are less effective in the very beginning, but more effective during the game, and their effectiveness lasts much farther into the game, as all agree cannons lose effectiveness in the endgame, where there are so many fewer pieces for them to leap. Also, the larger board favors unlimited sliders over shortrange pieces. In my opinion, the advantage is tilting toward SKX.

M Winther wrote on 2007-04-19 UTC
In order to know how the Chinese Cannon fares in this congested situation one would need to test this in a Zillions program. The situation is quite different compared with Chinese Chess where there are always open lines. 

David Paulowich wrote on 2007-03-14 UTC

The Elephant has no brakes, so it cannot stop after moving just one square. Compare this piece with the Chinese Horse, which makes one orthogonal move and then must continue with a second (diagonal) move. Also the [Jesters] link on this page takes you to the King's Court Chess page, which has a diagram for the Jester - Free Padwar - War Elephant.

[2008 EDIT] Added a remark concerning the Chinese Elephant to the Pieces section.

Joe Joyce wrote on 2007-03-14 UTC
The piece moves like a ferz, then must move like a ferz again [a 'forced 2-step bent ferzrider' ;-) ]. It has 2 limitations: 1 - it cannot capture on the first step of its 2-step move. The first square it moves to *must* be empty. It may only capture on the second step. 2 - it cannot make a null move. It may not move back to its original square.

Abdul-Rahman Sibahi wrote on 2007-03-14 UTC
I don't quite understand how the Elephant moves in this game. (I read the Pawdar's description, didn't help.)

Joe Joyce wrote on 2007-03-14 UTC
A very nice-looking game overall, looking forward to playing this one too [and probably losing]. The pieces are an unusual mix, with shortrange predominating. They seem nicely balanced, with what appears to me to be a slight bias for white toward the white squares and black, toward the black. I'm curious to see how the ferz plays out against the 2 lame elephants. Without the cannons, it would be very much an 'open shatranj' feel, but I suspect the cannons will often be used as sacrifices to crack open a defended position; certainly they could speed up the game a bit.

8 comments displayed

Later Reverse Order Earlier

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.