Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

~~Later~~ ⇩Reverse Order⇧ ~~Earlier~~

Turkish Great Chess II. Gollon's large historical variant. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]

Anonymous wrote on 2010-06-08 UTC

In one of pages, describing this game was comment about move of qualmaqini:
'Interpret that as you wish'. I suppose, it's move is unknown.
Here are my ideas about it:
1. If on same rank or file as opponent's king, moves 1 orthogonally
towards it. If shares neither rank, nor file, moves 1 diagonally towards
both rank and file.
2. Moves orthogonally towards opponent's king either rank or file.
3. As 1 and 2 both.

John Smith wrote on 2008-10-24 UTCAverage ★★★

I think the Qalmaqini moves are explained as thus: Draw a line between the center of the Qalmaqini's square to the center of the opposing Padshah. The orthogonally or diagonally adjacent squares to the Qalmaqini that are in this path are which squares the Qalmaqini can move to. I do not think they promote since they can always potentially move.

Yu Ren Dong wrote on 2008-10-23 UTCGood ★★★★

I think this version is better than other Turkish Great Chess. 

Qalmaqini ,armed women, moves like a Shogi Pawn. Can Qalmaqini be promoted when reaching in the last rank?

Abdul-Rahman Sibahi wrote on 2007-05-13 UTC

The Qalmaqini sounds very much like the Shogi pawns. Am I right ?

📝John Ayer wrote on 2007-03-31 UTC

That's the way it was: symmetrical with respect to a point rather than a line.

Jeremy Good wrote on 2007-03-30 UTC

Setup for preset and diagram is asymmetric. Is that on purpose?

Jeremy Good wrote on 2006-02-21 UTC

The Qalmaqini require a bit more explanation as to how they move exactly, I think.

📝John Ayer wrote on 2003-08-06 UTCGood ★★★★

If we call the armed female attendants Qalmaqini, and the bishop-knight a Bukhshi, then the king is called Shah instead of Padshah (emperor), and they are arranged Bukhshi, Wazir, Shah, Shahzadeh from left to right across each player's four central squares on the home-row. Murray says the version shown in the diagram above is the corrected version, but this other arrangement has its own internal logic. Probably there was some experimenting.

Tony Quintanilla wrote on 2003-07-12 UTCGood ★★★★

Besides its historical interest, this is a very interesting variant. The different central Pawns and the central Knights are intriguing. The selective use of the 3rd or forward rank bears consideration in designing other games too.

9 comments displayed

~~Later~~ ⇩Reverse Order⇧ ~~Earlier~~

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.