Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

hey noahthegamer here. thanks for the chess+ link i was trying to find that for a while. also just so people know i intended for the omni pawn to be a buffed version of the pawn. i had no idea what so ever that someone already named their piece that.

The author, Bn Em, has updated this page.

What attribute? https://www.chesscraft.ca/design?id=24bm Where do you think I got those variants from? Not all of those are from ChessCraft though, but yes most of them are. I was right that it was created by the same person (I just asked).

Hmmm, there doesn't seem to be any attribution on that (unless it's missing because I'm on Desktop); shame really, nice to be able to attribute things where due. I'll definitely mention it though (and might be worth the Chess+ link as well (I'd look for it myself but the site seems to lack a search facility), if only for the attribution — and the fact that ‘Test’ is not the most inspiring name for a game!)

ChessCraft

I'd been wondering where you were getting all the variants from (especially since you attribute them to others) that you've been posting IDs for :‌)

Since Chess+ isn't the first variant with that piece, I'll give a link to a ChessCraft board titled "test" instead, which was uploaded in January 2023, probably created by the same person. https://www.chesscraft.ca/design?id=1qqi

Do you have a link for that? Would definitely be good info to have here

@Bob: No doubt you're at least the first person to deploy it using Gilman's name :‌) (even if that's an even more trivial place in history ;‌P)

mW2cF2 also appears in Chess+ by noahthegamer although it can also advance three squares for its first move. It was created around half a year before the page for Desert Dust was created.

The extra initial advance makes it a subtly different animal, though if it's ruled to take my (admittedly quite trivial) place in chess history, that's OK.

mW2cF2 also appears in Chess+ by noahthegamer although it can also advance three squares for its first move. It was created around half a year before the page for Desert Dust was created.

I'm lightly torn on whether to include this information on the page too; it's not the main subject of the page but it's interesting and it'd be a shame to have it hidden away in a comment.

I was wrestling with this problem too, when adding checkmating paragraphs for other minors in the Piececlopedia. For majors it is easy, and you can simply say "this piece can force checkmate...". But for minors it is really useful information with which other minors it has to be paired to be able to force checkmate, and when it can not. But the paragraph tends to get long, and repetitive between pages, when you have to explain the details every time.

Perhaps the part of the explanation that applies to many pieces should be made on the Applet page itself. I could add paragraphs there to say something like "The XXX can switch its attack from one square to a square orthogonally separated by two steps, which allows it to checkmate in combination with almost any piece that can roam the entire board", and similar things for semi-potent and forking pieces, which initially are hidden, and which could be opened by a request in the query string when they apply, the XXX automatically replaced by the piece name.

[Edit] I have now done this, and took the liberty to switch on the explanations for semi-potent and forking through the URL in the Steward page.

I now set up a 3-vs-1 page that can be preconfigured in the same way as the existing 2-vs-1 page

I've added a link to that, plus a bit more of your detailed explanation (with the terms clarified — hopefully correctly — as they're as yet far from established terminology)

The mFcW is potent (it can switch its attack from c1 to a1 by moving from c2 to b1), and can thus in principle force mate together with any minor

I'm lightly torn on whether to include this information on the page too; it's not the main subject of the page but it's interesting and it'd be a shame to have it hidden away in a comment

You're missing a link to Interdependent Chess

It does have a link earlier in the page; I had made a conscious decision not to duplicate links (the two Schwalbe glossary links being to different portions of the document), though I don't feel strongly about that if you feel it's better to link it twice

I left a comment on that page about the name of Guardian being used for the Berolina Steward in Lt. Obert's Decimal Chess from the 1870's

I'd completely forgotten about that, especially since it's not the main subject of the page; I've added a mention thereof (though CECV gives the date as 1880, which is what I've put down)

In Decimal Chess, Obert gave his Guardian a double move

The relevance of double moves for pawnlike pieces such as steward and guardian had gone completely over my head; it's late now but I'll make sure to double(!) check when I next get time to do so what the rules are in the various games (though I expect it'll be double moves only if they're pawn replacements)

You're missing a link to Interdependent Chess, and I left a comment on that page about the name of Guardian being used for the Berolina Steward in Lt. Obert's Decimal Chess from the 1870's. I didn't give double moves to the Steward and Guardian in Interdependent Chess, probably because it was on a small board. In Decimal Chess, Obert gave his Guardian a double move not only from its starting square but also when returning to it. Pritchard's description does not make it clear whether either Guardian has a double move returning to either Guardian's starting square or whether each Guardian gets a double move only to its own starting square. I came upon the same name as Obert did by coincidence, as I did not know about his game until later.

I don't suppose there's a way of linking to the 3‐on‐1 checkmating applet with pieces preselected?

I now set up a  3-vs-1 page that can be preconfigured in the same way as the existing 2-vs-1 page: just add a query string like ?betza=mWcF&name=Steward&img=steward . Unlike the 2-vs-1 page it displays the full statistics table; I think it is better to have the user see it grow to quench his impatience, as for 2-vs-1 it can take rather long.

Currently the page always uses a homogeneous pair of the specified type. This doesn't make it very useful, as there are only very few such pairs that could force checkmate. So perhaps we should make it possible to specify a second piece independently. We could then also link to it from Piececlopedia pages of other minors, selecting a suitable partner together with which it can force mate. E.g. for 'potent' minors it could be a Zebra, for 'semi-potent' minors a Camel, for 'forking' minors a Wazir (or if that is too weak, a Frog), and for minors that lack any useful properties a Modern Elephant.

The Steward is both forking (as only the capture is important for this property) and semi-potent (the W move can switch it attack by one orthogonal step), which is why a pair of them can do it. The mFcW is potent (it can switch its attack from c1 to a1 by moving from c2 to b1), and can thus in principle force mate together with any minor, provided the board is small enough. (The weaker the combination, the smaller the board has to be to drive the bare King into a corner.) With the caveat that is effectively color bound, so a color-bound partner should be on the other shade.

With color bounds it can often be the case that the mate can only be executed on a corner of a specific shade, which effectively makes the board look larger, and thus requires a stronger combination of minors for a given board size. With a pair of unlike mFcW the mate is possible in all corners, which is probably the reason that such a weak combination can still manage it up to 10x10.

Perhaps once it's ready and published ;‌) Little sense in linking out to a page noöne can (yet) officially access

Agreed. That's why I merely said "of interest." :)

But 8x8 is the largest square board where they manage that

Noted

The problem for having something similar for 3-vs-1 is not technical, but the use case

The Stewards being the exception proving the rule :‌)

Page descriptions can be edited from the editors' Edit Links page ([links]).

Ok, I've done that now; I'd spotted that page but wasn't sure it was usable for updating links as well as adding new ones (it's not terribly extensively documented(!)) and I'm still not sure I can intuit the correct set of features just from looking at it. Maybe something to test in future

"capturing" in the paragraph with my name in it is misspelled

Well spotted :‌) something was bound to get through (I'm lightly surprised I'm not spotting more to be honest)

UCC may be of interest, regarding your Steward article

Perhaps once it's ready and published ;‌) Little sense in linking out to a page noöne can (yet) officially access

Minor note: the word "capturing" in the paragraph with my name in it is misspelled (probably a typo). :)

This has ended up without a description as I submitted the form in a rush due to some apparently bugged aspects of both logging in and the Submission form (I might describe those further in another comment); the metadata editing form I now have access to was very useful for setting this to be a Piececlopedia page and correctly assigning attribution, but it seems (and I think this has been noted before) it lacks a field for adjusting the Description (as opposed from the, distinct, What's New text); is there any way for me to do this?

Page descriptions can be edited from the editors' Edit Links page ([links]). You should generally modify the Primary link; non-Primary ones are used to display e.g. alternative names in index pages, but are excluded in searches with primarylinksonly=on.

Indeed, it is quite amazing that two pieces with so few moves can force the bare King into a corner. They seem to cooperate very well when standing next to each other, as a self-protecting pseudo-piece covering 2 squares, leaving the King free to close off other escapes. But 8x8 is the largest square board where they manage that. The reverse piece, mFcW is even better at this, and can still force checkmate on 10x10. (But being effectively color bound, only for the pair on unlike shade.) It cannot self-protect, but is good at preventing the bare King to approach them, when standing next together. Ferzes would probably be even better at this, but cannot execute the final checkmate even when the bare King is cornered.

There indeed is a special version of the 2-vs-1 Applet that configures the piece move from the URL. The problem for having something similar for 3-vs-1 is not technical, but the use case. Two identical minor pieces are almost never capable of forcing the checkmate. So you would want to present the piece of interest with a partner that would allow it to force the mate. OTOH, you don't want the mate to be mainly the achievement of that other piece. (Like it would be when you pair it with a Bishop, which can force checkmate together with virtually any piece on any size board.)

Note that a pair of Stewards can in general force checkmate against a bare King

I hadn't expected that or I'd've had a provisional note to that effect; it's added now, as is an updated note about the value.

I don't suppose there's a way of linking to the 3‐on‐1 checkmating applet with pieces preselected? There's a similar thing on e.g. the Archbishop page but it doesn't use the normal 2‐on‐1 applet

I never measured the Steward, but I have little doubt that its value is similar to that of Ferz and Wazir.  (Which already are almost indistinguishable, about 1.5 Pawn or slightly less.) A Wazir behind a wall of Pawns tested as 25cP worse than in or before it, like other orthogonal movers. (But because the value is so small to begin with it is more noticeable.) I suppose this has to do with the difficulty of developing it, and thus suppose a Steward would have that too.

Note that a pair of Stewards can in general force checkmate against a bare King, while a pair of Ferzes or Wazirs cannot (and the mixed pair only very rarely, even though it can take very many moves then).

Extending both captuing and noncapturing moves in this way gives the Satrap, proposed in Gilman's Diverging Further and first deployed some 15 years later in Bob Greenwade's Desert Dust, alongside its Berolina counterpart, there named the Ayatollah.

Yay!  I made history! ;)

it lacks a field for adjusting the Description (as opposed from the, distinct, What's New text); is there any way for me to do this?

This is definitely a lack. I still need the Index information edited for Snake vs. Mongoose, with no way of doing it myself.

This should be mostly (with one exception near the bottom) ready to publish, but I'd appreciate one or two of the other editors (and/or anyone else) taking a look to see if I've missed anything.

The Related Pieces subsection is not something that's usually in Piececlopedia pages, and I'm not 100% sure whether it's considered properly within scope; on the other hand it seems reasonable to put this information somewhere, and since none of the pieces there discussed have seen wide enough use to qualify for their own Piececlopedia enties… (And my Manticore page also features a paragraph to that effect, just not marked off as such with a heading)

@H.G.:

I'd assumed you might have a measurement of the Steward's value somewhere but a quick search of the Comments doesn't turn anything up; does such a measurement exist, or shall I leave out the bit about its value? (or can I just use one of the formulas? the N‐square leaper one or ⅔F+⅓W or the like?)

@Fergus:

This has ended up without a description as I submitted the form in a rush due to some apparently bugged aspects of both logging in and the Submission form (I might describe those further in another comment); the metadata editing form I now have access to was very useful for setting this to be a Piececlopedia page and correctly assigning attribution, but it seems (and I think this has been noted before) it lacks a field for adjusting the Description (as opposed from the, distinct, What's New text); is there any way for me to do this?