Ratings & Comments

At Zillions 2.0 you can use the create command.

Look at:

http://www.schoenberg.at/6_archiv/designs/designs_chess_e.htm

http://www.usc.edu/isd/archives/schoenberg/painting/gamehtms/noritter10.htm

anybody know where i can find the rules to coalition chess
(koalitionsschach)?  it doesn't appear on cv.com or in the evc.  i don't
know if it's a good game, but i'm curious because it was invented by
12-tone composer arnold schoenberg.

I believe chess variants would be taken more seriously, and get better
support, if there was a world champion at them and a world championship to
determine who is the best Chess Variant player.  For this, all variants
agreed to by the regulating organization would be open game.  A problem
with fostering one or another chess variant in particular to serve as an
alternative standard FIDE is that it doesn't generate enough interest.

What are people's comments regarding this?  Do you feel having a world
champion chess variant player, and a rating system, would be of value?

I can have it display your full name. But if you hover your mouse pointer
over the smiley face, it will give your name.

Had I understood that the comment pages would now display my ID instead of
my name, I would have not used such an anti-mnemonic ID.

I'm just testing making posts as a member.

I have implemented a very crude membership system for chessvariants.com. You
can now become a member of this site. I have also changed the commenting
system to be able to utilize member information. Stay tuned as we continue
to develop this capability and add member functions to various areas of the
site. Feedback is welcome and keep in mind -- this is a work in
progress...

Hey!  I rather like the Chess++ idea.  And it even fits my game concept
thematically.  Dibs again!  ;)  So here's a coding question for Peter or
the other top ZRF experts.  I'd like to set up a game where pieces are 'in
the queue' off the board behind specific pieces that start in the array. 
For example, let's say that a 'general' starts in the queue behind the
'cardinal.'  When the cardinal moves away from its array square, the
general appears there.  This only happens once, though, and additional
moves by the cardinal do not create more generals.  This idea might allow
me to incorporate unorthodox pieces on the standard chessboard without
clogging up the array and therefore bogging down the opening.  And who
wants clogging and bogging, anyway?  But I need to playtest it.  Any hints
on the best way to code this in Zillions?  I could probably come up with
something, but I have the feeling it would take me ten times as long to
reason it out as it will take Peter et.al.  Thanks!

Thanks for the info.  I am indeed concerned about avoiding confusion, and I
guess I retract my dibs (which I hope people realize was half-joking
anyway).  I'll try to think of something unique.

Meanwhile, I have written a ZRF for Mike Nelson's 'Capablanca-64' and
included an alternate array I'm calling 'Carrera-64'.  They both appear to
be very good games and a great way to incorporate the B+N and R+N onto the
standard chessboard.

If the goal is to avoid confusion, then you should be aware that 
Chess Plus is the name of an existing commercial four-player variant.
The author sells it at

http://www3.sympatico.ca/thejohnston/chess_plus.htm

If you're not concerned about avoiding confusion, then why bother with
calling dibs or anysuch?  Just look at how many superchesses there are.

Hmmm, well I want to use 'Chess Plus' and the link is to 'Chess Plus
Dvorak.'  Not exactly the same, so I think I can still call --- Dibs! 
Seriously, though, the linked site is interesting and might make a fun
game for people who don't mind the element of chance in their chess.

Well, it's not exactly on this site, but....
http://www.chessvariants.com/link2.dir/chessplusdeck.html

I have come up with a CV I'd like to call Chess Plus.  And since it appears
no one has used that name yet on these pages, I'm here to call dibs!  It's
an 8x8 game using orthodox pieces, Marshal, Cardinal, enhanced knights,
enhanced bishops, and two additional pieces that depend on what variant
you select -- basic version uses Dukes, which are
ferz+wazir+alfil+dabbaba.  I'll send the game to the editors for posting
as soon as I can slap together a rules file.  I've already built the ZRF.

Sorry, I hadn't been listening. Apparently, anticheckmate chess might be a
new game.

It's precisely what I said: WKe8, BKe1, Kings may not capture, all else as
per rule zero except that if you ever make a move that ends with your K
not in check you win.

Clearly, 1. f2-f4???? Ke1-f2 is the shortest game. 1. e2-e4? Ke1-e2! is
also bad.

Reference Racing Kings.

This is such a simple idea I thought it must already have been taken; and
you can tell without playtesting that it works well, with a feel similar
to Racing K.

This is such an obvious idea.

Hi Joerg,

I assume in German 'official' names for Ultima pieces does not exist.
Each author tries to find the best adaption.  The German version of
Zillions used names that differ from my inventions. I wrote a small
article for the magazin 'Computer-Schach und Spiele'. Please look to
'http://www-user.tu-chemnitz.de/~apf/Gnaax/CV/Ultima/ultima2.html'
for the content.

Friendly greetings,
Alfred Pfeiffer

If I remember right, a german description of Ultima
was once published in Spektrum der Wissenschaft (sister
journal of Scientific American). Since I cannot retrieve
the reference quickly here is my question: What are the
names of the Ultima pieces in german?

--JKn

If this game already exists, I can't find it. Sounds like it would work
well as each player would have to balance guarding the enemy king vs.
attacking the enemy pieces. I propose we call it Royal Hostage chess.

Here's another, similar idea:

Royal Hero chess

Standard setup.
The first player to do any of the following, wins:

1. Checkmate the opposing King, or
2. Make a move that takes his King out of check
3. Bare his opponent's King

Kings may move into check.
Kings cannot be captured, but may capture.

Oh, wait a minute -- you're trying to end up with your King not attacked.
I don't think that's been done.

If we put the WK on e8 and the BK on e1, and K may not capture, and you win
if you make a move that ends with your K not in check, is this a known
game?

Hi David,  thank you for your reponse.  Then, this rule (10.10) may not
involve any check's.  I really thought it revolved around checking the
King.  I guess not...    ...thanks again.

Here's the rule from our FIDE laws page
(http://www.chessvariants.com/fidelaws.html):

10.10
The game is drawn, upon a claim by the player having the move, when the
same position, for the third time: 
(a) is about to appear, if he first writes the move on his scoresheet and
declares to the arbiter his intention of making this move; or 
(b) has just appeared, the same player having the move each time. 
The position is considered the same if pieces of the same kind and colour
occupy the same squares, and if all the possible moves of all the pieces
are the same, including the rights to castle [at some future time] or to
capture a pawn 'en passant'.

Hi,

Can someone state the rule regarding when the King is checked three
consecutive times and it moves to the same two squares back and forth? 
Does this result in a draw?  

Suppose the King had other squares that he could have moved to but chose
the same ones to force a draw. Is this valid? Would this be a draw?

Does it matter which of the opponent's pieces were involved in giving
check? 

If I am not being very clear in my question, I do apologize, but therein
lies the problem: I do not clearly understand this rule; though, I do know
that such a rule exists.  Would someone clarify?

Appreciatively,

11 by 11?  Shouldn't a game with an asymmetry theme be played on an
asymmetrical board? :-)

Perhaps the 43-square contest would be perfect for an Asymmetry Chess...

Might be interesting to have a large variant built on the general theme of
asymmetry: some pieces would have the asymmetric retreat property but have
symetric move patterns, some would also have asymmetric forward and
backward moves, some with asymmetric left and right moves, some with
divergent captures, etc. Perhaps a 11 by 11 game with strong pieces and a
strong, asymmetric King.

Thank you all for your replies.

Thanks, Ben.  Cannon type pieces of course have asymmetic retreat (though
these could be arguably defined as a subtype of multi-movers). Indeed the
Grasshopper and the Cannon when capturing have a stronger form of
asymettric retreat.  Some definitions:

1. High-power Symmetric Retreat--the piece can alway return to its
starting square on the next move by reversing its path (unless prohibited
by the need to meet check, etc.) Example:  Knight. Nb1-c3 can always be
followed by Nc3-b1.

2. Low-power Symmetric Retreat--the piece can return to its starting
square on the next move by reversing its path unless the opponent has used
his turn to block it.
Example: Rook.  Rc3-h3 can be follewd by Rh3-c3 if opponent has not moved
a piece to d3,e3,f3 or g3.

3. Low-power Asymmetric Retreat--the piece cannot reverse its path but may
be able to return to its starting square on the next move if the alternate
retreat path is not blocked. Example: Gryphon.

4. High-power Asymmetric Retreat--the piece cannot return to its starting
square on the next move unless the opponent moves to facilitate it.
Example: Grasshopper.  Gc3-c7 cannot be followed by Gc7-c3 unless the
opponent moves a piece to c4.

well, besides multi-movers, leaping pieces such as grasshoppers have
symmetric move patterns but assymetric retreat.  and xiangqi cannon has
assymetric retreat when capturing but not when moving, which is one of the
things that makes it such a neat piece (and difficult to get used to).<P>

and incidentally any piece that move differently forwards than backwards
(these pieces don't have symmetric move patterns, at least not about the
x-axis) is going to have assymetric retreat.  this includes lots of betza
pieces such as fBbR, fRbB, etc etc (i could go on and on) and shogi pieces
(which can of course be easily described in betza notation) such as the
gold, silver, copper generals, the white horse and the whale, etc etc.

The bent riders and lame leapers (like the Mao) are part of a larger class
that might be called 'multi-movers'.  These are pieces that can make two
(or more) geometrically different moves in the same turn.  The gryphon
moves as a Ferz and then (optionally) as a Rook; the Mao moves as a Wazir
then (mandatorily) as a Ferz. Any such piece will have the asymmetric
retreat property if the order of move types is not reversible. If the
gryphon could move Ferz then Rook or Rook then Ferz it would not have the
asymetric retreat property (and would be immensely powerful).

True leapers such as the Knight in a sense might be said to have the
asymmetric retreat property but it is irrelevant as they can jump over
occupied squares--I prefer to think of a leaper's move as a direct
point-to-point move that does not pass over interventing squares, in which
case the Knights retreat is not asymmetic.

I believe that multi-movers are the only type of pieces which have
symmetric movement patterns but asymmetric retreat. (OK everbody, please
prove me wrong if possible!)

My s[w]eeping switchers army for chess with different
armies features three pieces with assymetric retreat.
All of them are bent riders: The panda (aka slip rook),
the erl queen (aka slip queen) and the unicorn.

Another one is the mao (xiangi horse) which is not a bent
rider.

--Jörg Knappen

I notice in the page for the Griffon the statement that the Griffon has
asymmetrical-retreat properties.

This is interesting.

I wonder if it might be a nice idea to devise a chess variant where all of
the pieces have asymmetrical-retreat properties.

Are there any other pieces which have asymmetrical-retreat properties or
would some need to be devised in order to produce such a game?

There could be a piece which is related to a conventional bishop in much
the same manner as a griffon is related to a conventional rook, in that
for such a piece there could be a move of one square orthogonally followed
by a diagonal move away from the original position for zero or more empty
squares, together with the possibility of capturing from a final occupied
square of the move.  This piece would always move to a square of the
opposite colour.

It would seem that in order to have asymmetrical-retreat properties that a
piece could not be simply a leaper.

There could be pieces where one screen piece in the route of movement is a
necessity.  One such could perhaps be a piece that has movement which
changes from orthogonal to diagonal at the screen piece.

Any ideas for existing or new pieces which would be suitable for such a
game please?

The measurement that was used by Gabriel Vincente Maura to justify the
design of his variant, Modern Chess (Ajedrez Moderno), 
http://www.chessvariants.com/large.dir/modern.html
is kind of interesting.  This is taken from the booklet that came with my
Modern Chess set, 'Mathematical Thesis of Modern Chess', 50 p., 2nd
English Edition Revised, 1974.

He defines the maximum mobility of each piece as the number of squares it
can move to from its best position on the board, that is:

K=8, Q=27, B=13, N=8, R=14, P=2

The maximum relatve mobility for the total of each player's pieces is the
sum of the maximum mobilities of all the pieces, divided by two, because
there are two players.  Thus:

(K+Q+2B+2N+2R+8P)/2 = (8+27+26+16+28+16)2 = 60.5

He defines the maximum mobility that the chessboard offers simply as the
number of squares.  He wants the maximum relative mobility of the pieces
(60.5) to be equal to the maximum mobility offered by the chess board
(64).  Since the numbers aren't equal, he declares FIDE Chess to be
defective.  Needless to say, for Modern Chess, with the addition of the
Marshall, both numbers work out to 81.

Some example calculations for other variants:

                  'mobility'   board
Grand Chess           98        100
Timur's Chess         86        112
Xiang Qi              59.5       90
Shogi(unpromoted)     45.5       81
Shogi(promoted)       75         81

I believe that this is little better than numerology, but it's still fun
to play with.

ok, i'll have to come back and read more carefully later, but one thing i
noticed is something to the effect that wider boards help increase the
value of diagonal movers more than orthogonal movers.  i have had no
experience that would even remoately back up such a claim.  in david
short's doublechess, a game in which the board is 16x8, the bishop is
severely weakened by the width of the board.  it's well-known that
increasing the board size weakens the knight, but in doublechess the B is
hurt almost as much as the N by the board change (comparing to 8x8).  the
fact that it is more likely to attack the opponent's camp in 2 directions
rather than 1 is small compensation for the fact that it often takes 10
moves or move to get the bishop from side of the board to the other.  the
rook, on the other hand, is not affected at all.  in fact, when studying
the relative values of pieces on different sized boards, it is my claim
that all other things being equal, the rook is the most consistent piece
from board to board, and should be the baseline against which other pieces
are measured.

For comparison's sake, I quickly calculated some piece densities:

Shogi     49.4%
XiangQi   35.6%
Timur's   50.0%

The density of any 9x9 variant with an extra piece is 44.4%

I have two observations.  First is that I think wide boards actually
increase the relative value of diagonal movers, not orthogonal ones. 
Consider a very long narrow board.  It will take a diagonal mover many
moves before it can hit a square on the opponent's half of the board,
whereas an orthogonal mover can do so on turn one.  On a wide board, the
diagonal mover has more squares from which it can attack squares in the
opponent's camp.

Secondly, I agree about unit density.  I am currently working on a large,
complex ultima-like game with powerful unorthodox pieces.  I found that
the game only works on a 10x10 board with three rows: one row of pawns,
one row of guards (with value intermediate between pawns and pieces but
without the pawn's ability to promote) and one row of pieces.  Unit
density is 0.60.  Immediate development is slower than in orthochess, but
because units are more mobile than orthodox pieces, the game heats up
pretty quickly.  All of the games I have playtested, and there have been a
lot, have ended in less than a hundred moves.  The game isn't quite ready
for posting to these pages but if anyone is interested in seeing what I'm
talking about and wants to email me, I can send them a 'beta' version. 
It's quite playable and interesting, I think.  But you'll only like it if
you like games that are more complex and somewhat wilder than orthochess.

Perhaps you might consider buying an Omega Chess set
(http://www.omegachess.com), which uses a 10x10 board with extra corner
squares which could be ignored for the 10x10 gaes you want to play.

Peter,

It seems like another new game is about to be born in the comments system.
 It looks like a very good one.  If drawishness is a problem because of
hoarding cards as you suggest it may be, perhaps the answer is to use a
stronger than FIDE army to compensate for the difficulites of moving.

K and Amazon vs K should be more winnable than K and Q vs K as fewer moves
are needed=card hoarding is less effective. But I would really prefer the
FIDE army if the game is playable with it.

Castling as a King move is a good idea, I think.  The endgame.  Hmm.  A K +
Q vs K endgame could be stymied by the player with the bare King holding
on to the KQ, PQ and (Wild) cards.  I wonder if some additional mechanism
is called for.  Of course, it needs to be seen if this game comes down to
situations like that.  Pawns are relatively mobile, and because there are
many cards that let Pawns move, they defend each other with greater
effectiveness than other pieces.  It seems to indicate that Pawnless
endgames may not be as common as in usual Chess.

Does castling require one card, or two, as you see it?  I vote one, a King
card, since officially castling has long been viewed as a move of the
King.  But I could go either way.

A 19-card set sounds like a plan...White with nine, Black with nine plus
the Wild card, no card used on White's first move.

I can see some potential for endgame draws, where mating material is
hindered by a lack of sufficient cards to make the moves.  :)

Just had another thought...a 10-card version with five cards each for King
and Pawn, two cards each for others, with the Wild card.  Or 9 without the
Wild card.  The optimum card mix, as you astutely noted, may not yet be
known.

KQ KB KN KR KP PQ PB PN PR (Wild)

I need to play with this.  It's quite an idea.

I wonder if the King shouldn't be like any other piece, even in check; if
you're in check, have no card to move the King, and can't defeat the check
otherwise it is mate.

The concept will map with interesting results to a lot of variants that
use the ordinary 8x8 and 32 pieces.  The cards might even work best with a
form other than orthochess.

Peter, you think too much!  :)

i see quite a few things have been posted on this subject while i was out
of town this weekend.  i would also caution against too many large
variants for the same reason that they take much longer to play.  in a
previous comment i listed a bunch of larger variants as possibilities, but
i wasn't suggested we play all of them, just that they were all good
possibilities.  i would also be careful about small variants that are
chosen.  as both a game designer and judge, i know that designing a small
chess variant is much more difficult than designing a medium or large one.
 i found very very few small variants that i was truly impressed with, and
even fewer that were so well designed that they would not have been
improved if the ideas had been extended to a larger game.  even some of
the games that ranked high in some of the contests i found to be quite
weak.

It looks like I'll be the editor in charge of the first tournament.  Right
now I have compiled, with plenty of suggestions, a list of 42 games to
pick from.  They break down around 50% regular board size, 33% smaller,
16% larger.

I am constructing a poll to allow folks to vote on any of those games they
would like to see in, and indeed to suggest others.  The set of games to
be used _in 2003_ will be picked by the staff here guided by the polls. 
We want a mix of old, new, big, small, etc.  Variety is key the first time
out.

When and if the first tourney succeeds, I'd love to see 'thematics' later,
much as we have held a variety of design contests.  The linchpin issue is
simply whether we can get players.  I'd be happy with 10, but would love
20 or more.  And picking good games is a prerequisite to getting players.

And I agree with the comment that there are so many good games it's hard
to get agreement on a list.  That's why I suggested this; lots of good
games languishing in obscurity.

Please keep the feedback coming...

I prefer regular-sized or large variants to small ones, so I'd not like to
see the contest limited to games of 38-41 squares, though I'd certainly
not object to some of those games being included.   I'd rather see the
slate of games for any given year be eclectic -- some small, some
normal-sized, some large, and from a variety of inventors or sources.  You
get to experience more interesting games that way, I think, and no one
gets left out because all of the games in a given year are not to his/her
taste.

These are the salient points, as I see them:

- There are so many good variants it's hard to even agree on a list to
select from.

- Large variants should be carefully considered because of playing time
considerations.

- Subsequent PBEM tournaments could have different themes.

My proposal:

- Select the variants from the top three finishers of the 38, 39, 40, and
41 square contests.  This gives 12 selections to choose from, and most are
not famous or recognized variants.  Their playablility is proven, they are
relatively small, and should generally be done quickly.

I like the idea of holding a different PBEM contest each year, if there is
interest.  Possibilities include a Large Variant theme (selected from the
Large Variant, 100 square, and 84 square contests); a Betza theme (all
Betza variants); an Aronson theme.  The games selected for these contests
should not overlap.  Other possibilities include a history theme
(Shatranj, Xiangqi, Shogi, Makruk, etc.); a Shogi variant theme (Tori,
Chu, Wa, etc.); etc.

Count me in.

HAS ANYONE HEARD OF A MAXIMUM OF 13 ALLOWABLE MOVES TO MATE A LONE KING,
ASSUMING ENOUGH OPPOSING PIECES FOR A CHECKMATE?

Obviously, the ten games should be Chess with Different Armies, Feeble
Chess, Tripunch Chess, Half Chess, Amontillado Chess, Progressive
Cambiamarce DemiChess, Torus Peacebump Punch Chess, Cloud Chess, All Go
Together Chess, Nemoroth, and Alice's Chessgi.

I tend to pick from games i'm more familiar with....

I think I like Glenn's idea of X days per move, with one warning before
forfeiture, and suspension upon proper notice of vacation, illness,
personal matters, etc.  Since this tournament should be viewed as a
friendly one between like-minded variant players, the rules shouldn't be
too restrictive.  I think 3 days per player-move should cover most
situations other than the aforementioned major ones, and it means that in
a year all games that take less than 60 full moves will be finished.  In
reality, games even much longer can probably be finished since players
will in most cases not take 3 days for every move.  For some games, and on
some days, I know that I will be able to play several moves if my opponent
is agreeable.

Time limits are the headache of correspondence chess.  Sigh.  I, too, am
spoiled by Richard's PBEM server.  The Omega Chess tournament there is at
G/180 days (30 days vacation with notice allowed), and that G/180 gets
counted to the minute and second by the central server.

Obviously we don't have that option.

Suggestions for how to best count a G/XX time limit are welcome.  I'd like
to see a year maximum on the games, and expect to see more small variants
than large for that reason (and the fact that we've had a lot of small
variant design contests!).

An absolute time limit of Y days for any individual move, with one warning
and a notice provision for vacations, might also work in lieu of the
above.