Ratings & Comments
To be honest I don't recall it is a long time ago. But it worked before. Anyway I'll make the change.
It seems the J/j piece is not defined as an imitator. In the Pre-Game code the legdefs array should be initialized for the Imitator as
1 -2 0 1 16777219 // joker(1826) 0 1 -2 0 -1 16777219 // joker(1832) 0
But instead of a -2 you now have a 1 there.
How was this Pre-Game code created? Did you paste an existing Interactive Diagram into the Play-Test Applet, or did you select the pieces one by one from the table?
It seems no one knows what happened. It worked before.
It looks like ski-whatever is the only name anyone's used for these pieces.
Well… strictly speaking Gilman extended (in M&B06) the name Picket, as well as its orthogonal and 3D‐/hex‐diagonal counterparts (resp. Pocket and Packet) and their forward‐only counterparts (Piker/Poker/Paker) and compounds (typically with the suffix ⟨‐on⟩, as in e.g. Fezbaon for H.G.'s Lame Duck), to include pieces which leap over the first cell, or indeed the last or any single intermediate one — these latter three being resp. early‐ late‐ and flexi‐leap versions of the usually Stepping pieces.
It seems he only ever used the stepping form in his actual games though (though it seems ski‐ itself is (or at least originates as) problemist usage, which fwiw Gilman tended to be dismissive of, if not without his reasons)
Okay, that's now fixed.
It worked before! Hopefully HG knows better!
My guess would be that the automatic code generator was never designed to handle imitators.
In English, skiing is a winter sport that involves sliding on snow with a long plank attached to each foot. The piece name probably refers to a ski jump, in which a skier goes down a ramp that sends him up into the air for a while before touching ground.
Ski-whatever is a bizarre name to my ears. Like if the piece was skiing. What's the meaning of ski- in English in this context?
HG & Fergus
Hello, Something seems wrong with all my grand apothecary chess presets when the imitator has to move. It always imitates a pawn regardless of what the previous player does. Any of you 2 has a reason? Links Below:
https://www.chessvariants.com/play/pbm/play.php?game=Grand+Apothecary+Chess+1&settings=Applet
https://www.chessvariants.com/play/pbm/play.php?game=Grand+Apothecary+Chess+2&settings=Applet
https://www.chessvariants.com/play/pbm/play.php?game=Grand+Apothecary+Chess+3&settings=Applet
Thank you! It looks like ski-whatever is the only name anyone's used for these pieces.
Bn Em points out a similar issue with link pages in this comment.
The correct external link page for All the King's Men is
https://www.chessvariants.com/link/pcAlltheKingsMen
(a semantic version of https://www.chessvariants.com/index/external.php?itemid=pcAlltheKingsMen
).
There Jelliss references himself in a '73 The Problemist article, which somewhat remarkably are available online at https://www.theproblemist.org/mags.pl?type=tp. Clicking and searching through the issues, I find Ski pieces defined on page 387 of the November/December issue 285.
‘Ski‐’ seems to date back at least as far as Jelliss' ’All the King's Men‘, which would seem to be a work about pieces but not an actual game (I can't seem to access it though, and fsr the link in the Alphab. Index is to https://www.chessvariants.com/link/
). Idk if he got his terminology from another source himself
I knew I must have forgotten something — looks like it was indeed Tenjiku's Tetrarch
The Heavenly Tetrarch in Tenjiku Shogi has ski-slide moves, but combines them with igui on the skipped square. The Wyvern in the Daring Dragons army of CwDA has a sideway ski-slide. (This caused a lot of trouble when programming it in the KingSlayer engine.)
Where does the ski- name come from then?
The Google Custom Search turns up this when searching for ‘ski‐rook’: https://www.chessvariants.com/other.dir/abc-chess.html
Apparently it contains a (leaping) ski‐bishop, though no actual ski‐rook. Only one I could find though. EDIT: Never mind, apparently it's just an example. And all the other usages of ski‐sliders or Pickets (and their compounds) seem to be lame. Which leaves only a game which I've had in mind but not yet got round to writing up, where a leaping‐picket+wazir promotes from a Phoenix/Waffle. And arguably (albeit failing the ‘straight line’ condition) the original GA unicorn/rhinoceros
I must admit I'm surprised these aren't more popular…
Are there any games that use pieces that slide in a straight line but always hop over the first square? I know there's the picket, but that doesn't jump.
I was merging the functionality of canonicalURI, which takes an ItemID, into make_link_url, which takes a row, and I didn't do a thorough job of it. That is now fixed. Instead of duplicating functionality, canonicalURI will now use the ItemID to get a row with which it can call make_link_url. Having make_link_url call canonicalURI, as it was doing before, was wasteful, because it queried the database for a row it already had from a previous database query.
The links to favorites are sometimes populated with just chessvariants.com/rules/
. I didn't notice this on the overall favorites listing page, but did on the Games->YourFavorites
menu and my personal information page's listing, in both places TessChess (among others) failing to link correctly.
After white negotiates its move with black's response, if black gets to negotiate next then black will have two consecutive moves (the reaction to white's, then their own proposed move), so it seems n=1 is not quite the same as ordinary chess. Or have I misunderstood the proposal?
Is anyone interested?
At Chess StackExchange I proposed a new chess variant: chess with negotiation. To sum it up:
When one side (white) is to move, it publicly offers a number of possible moves it considers to make next. The other side (black) must give his reactions on these moves as promises. After this step (the "negotiation step") white chooses one of its offered moves, and black must react as promised. Then black makes its offers and so on.
To make this variant specific the maximal number n of possible next moves has to be specified. n=1 is just standard chess, but n=∞ would work as well. Considering n=2 would be a good starting point.
This variant bears more similarities with actual "warfare" where negotiations play a role.
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.
I have made the change and now it works! May I enquire what the -2 stands for?