[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments by FergusDuniho
When I first described Piece Code here, I gave a brief legend only for the symbols actually used in the examples, but several of these symbols were macros for code you didn't see. Absolute directions have been defined as hexadecimal digits between 1 and C, as per the clockface model. But this does not work so well for a square board. So I think I will use a numeric keypad model for square boards. There is a relative direction for every absolute direction. It is presently identified by prepending an absolute direction with the / operator. F, L, R, and B are aliases for four of these. I plan to add P and S for port and starboard directions. On a square board, these would default to the two forward diagonal directions. Y could be used for (P|S), and a Mao's movement could be represented as OeY. A Knight might be described as moving OY. A Holywar Squire would be OeY|DeY or (O|D)eY. I'm also planning on adding symbols for rotation without moving. I may use lowercase d and w for deasil and widdershins, which mean clockwise and counterclockwise but start with different letters. Each of these would rotate a piece's orientation to the next axis. This would be 45 degree turn on a square board, a 30 degree turn on a hex board. The letter u could be used for a U-turn, i.e. rotating 180 degrees. Rotation would change a piece's relative directions without moving it. This would give another way to do a Mao move: Oe(w|d)F. Using lowercase y to represent (w|d), a Mao's move could be expressed as OeyF, moving one space orthogonally, then if the space is empty, rotating one turn deasil or widdershins to one of the forward diagonal directions, then moving forward.
Regarding the Herald's move, I have not yet added anything for taking into account the position of a piece. Given that I want Piece Code to define pieces in a board-independent way, and to be understandable both by humans and by software, there may not be a feasible way for it to handle how the Herald moves. I plan to eventually add strings of Piece Code to PBM piece sets, and these are intended to be used with any board someone gives FEN code for. If I tried to define a piece in terms of a particular board, it may break down on another board. Instead of trying to make it do everything, I'll accept some limitations in Piece Code and use it mainly for generating warning messages that a given move may be illegal. I may take the earlier suggestion of using some symbol that indicates that the code only partially describes how a piece moves.
In my game Holywar, the Mao+Moa was called a Squire, because it was like a Knight but weaker.
Yáng Qí. Yankee ingenuity adds new power to Chinese Chess. (9x10, Cells: 90) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Sam wrote: 'The beuity with Chinese chess is that you can move any piece at the beginning of the game, giving the game many more posiblitys in the game.' While it is true that any piece can move at the beginning of Chinese Chess, it is also true that any piece may move at the beginning of Yang Qi. If you consider more opening moves a reason for favoring a game, consider that Yang Qi has 55 possible opening moves, while Chinese Chess has only 44.
Leo. Moves on queen lines, but must jump once when taking.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Hans,
What is your source for saying that the Leo 'was invented in 1936 by Dr. P. Seyfert'? The only source I have on the subject, Dickins' A Guide to Fairy Chess, says of the Leo, Vao, and Pao, 'They were introduced by T. R. Dawson from Chinese Chess, probably before 1914' (11).
Yáng Qí. Yankee ingenuity adds new power to Chinese Chess. (9x10, Cells: 90) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Switching the place of an Arrow and a Sage is not a bad idea. Although it was a design goal to mirror the setup of Chinese Chess as much as possible, changing the setup may have some advantages in terms of game play. Because the setup is symmetrical, its 55 possible opening moves are equivalent to 28 opening moves. Likewise, the 44 opening moves in Chinese Chess are equivalent to 23 opening moves, which is not that far off from the 20 available in Chess. By making the setup asymmtrical, as it is in Chess, all 55 possible opening moves would be distinct from each other. I'll put some variant setups in an updated ZRF.
When I calculated the number of opening moves in Yang Qi, I omitted the King's two swapping moves. So there are 57 possible opening moves.
I think you counted four extra double moves for the forward Pawns. Only the rear Pawns have double moves. There are only 57 possible opening moves.
The three personality types in the Enneagram's competency triad are distinguished by how they relate to rules, and this bears on how members of these three types approach Chess variants. The three types in this triad are One, Three, and Five. Type One likes to obey rules. Type Three likes to master rules. And type Five likes to play with rules. While Ones like to obey rules, they sometimes feel dissatisfied with the rules, seeking to reform them or supplant them. Enneagram author Don Riso calls type One the Reformer. When a One is interested in creating Chess variants, it is usually out of a feeling of dissatisfiaction with Chess and other variants. A One typically seeks to create the perfect variant, and he may devote his efforts to perfecting one variant rather than to creating several variants. Unlike Ones, Threes aren't driven to create the perfect game. A Three is more likely to be driven to be good at a game. I expect that several of the most accomplished players are Threes. Threes generally don't have any inner drive to create new variants, but if a Three perceives a market for a new variant, he may create one, then invest his time and money into promoting it and marketing it. Threes are driven mainly by a desire for success, and for some Threes promoting a new Chess variant may be a means to success. Fives like to play and tinker with rules. When a Five is interested in Chess variants, he generally likes to play with Chess like it's a box of Legos or Tinker Toys, mixing and matching various rules, pieces, and boards to try out various possibilities. While Fives may employ standards in creating their games, they generally regard the perfect variant as a myth. For them, creating variants is more like playing with a kaleidescope than it is about seeking perfection. Although Fives may like to see their games manufactured, they generally lack a marketing orientation, and they are usually too busy working on their next variant to spend much time promoting their last one. Fives tend to create several more variants than other types do. There are six other Enneagram types, but the other six are probably less interested in creating Chess variants. This doesn't rule out the possibility that some variants have been created by other types, but it may be rare.
Eurasian Chess. Synthesis of European and Asian forms of Chess. (10x10, Cells: 100) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I remember Shako from the large variant contest. I discovered this site shortly before that contest ended, and I voted for Shako. I'm less familiar with Giga Chess. You may be pleased to know that I considered the name of Crossbow for the Vao, and I even created a Chinese piece for it before settling on the name of Arrow. You can see it at http://www.chessvariants.com/graphics.dir/big5/index.html
Regarding what Ralph and Tony might be, I would look more at why they create variants than at how well they play Chess. Although Threes are more competitive than Fives, I think Fives have more natural aptitude at Chess-like games. I think Chess appeals mainly to people in the intellectual triad (567) and to people in the competency triad (135). Type Five is the only type in both triads, which probably gives Fives more of an interest and more of a natural aptitude at such games. Also, when I spoke of best players, I meant people like Bobby Fischer, who played Chess very competitively. I'm sure many Fives play Chess very well, and I know that Fives can be competitive, since I am a Five and frequently enjoy competition. Regarding competition, I think one difference between Threes and Fives is that Threes put more of a premium on winning, while Fives enjoy the challenge of competition without worrying as much about winning or losing. Concerning why Threes and Fives create Chess variants, I have more thoughts on the matter. Besides creating variants for viable markets, Threes may create variants for the sake of competition. I suspect that the competitions at this site prompt some Threes to create Chess variants. While Fives, such as myself, also enjoy competing in these contests, I think one sign of being a Five is that someone frequently creates variants without entering them into contests. Getting back to Ralph and Tony, I'm fairly certain that Ralph is a Five. Tony might also be a Five, but I have less evidence to go on. Ralph clearly loves to play with rules. He has created several variants without any hope of marketing them or entering them in competitions. He seems to create Chess variants for the fun of it rather than for any extrinsic purpose. Also, his funny notation is the sort of thing that I expect only a Five would create.
As good a place to start as any is my own page on the Enneagram at http://www.duniho.com/fergus/enneagram It includes links to several of the main Enneagram websites.
Chinese Chess. Information on book on Xiangqi.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]Some attention should be drawn to the fact that the 'Handmade Magnetic Chinese Chess Set' is especially relevant to this book. The board and piece images used to make this set were from H. T. Lau's book.
DoubleEIGHTEEN-STONEchess. Combines Eight-Stone Chess with Double Chess. (16x9, Cells: 144) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]I was unaware that we prided ourselves on something that we don't do. Given that I did the 8-Stones ZRF, I might see if it can be easily modified for this game. It should go without saying that you should get Zillions of Games 2.0. You need it to play Voidrider Chess. And, as a general rule, ZRF developers like to see what they can do with the latest features of each update. To keep up with the games being made for Zillions, you need to remain updated yourself.
Marseillais Chess. Move twice per turn. (8x8, Cells: 64) (Recognized!)[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]This looks like an interesting game, but I don't wonder why no Zillions file is listed for it. This one would seem to be a difficult game to implement. The rule against checking on the first move may be difficult to implement, unless it's just impossible. I haven't analyzed the matter far enough to know whether it's possible. For each possible move, Zillions would have to check whether the enemy King would be in check. There is no query function for this, and even if there was one, it might be very costly. One might note the enemy King's location, then keep checking whether it is defended. But I'm not sure that this will work.
Zillions of Games comes with a game called 'Double-Move Chess (Checkmate),' whose description says, 'Checking the opponent is only allowed on the second move.' To test whether it enforced this rule, I played both sides. After moving all four center Pawns forward, I captured the Black King with two moves from the light-squared White Bishop. The game went like this: e2-e4, d2-d4; d7-d5, e7-d5; B f1-b5, B b5-e8. Although the rule was stated in the description, the ZRF did not enforce it.
I'm thinking the two moves should be of different move-types. The second move can first check whether the enemy King is in check. For example, preceed each move of the second move-type with (no-check?). Link all spaces on board with next direction. (define no-check? mark a1 (while (or (not-piece? King) (not-enemy?)) next) (verify not-defended) back) This searches for the enemy King's position, verifies whether its position is defended, which means the current player is threatening that space, then returns to the position of the piece moving.
I just reread your message. My idea was for something you already know how to do. But the principle behind it might be re-employed for making the King move out of check on the first move. Use two move-types. On the second move-type, check whether your King is in check. Search for the King's position, then check whether its position is attacked. I think you can just replace 'not-enemy?' with 'not-friend?' and 'defended?' with 'not-attacked?'. This will allow a second move only when the King is not in check. Thus, it will have to get out of check on the first move to get out of check at all.
I expect these two ideas could be combined together for greater efficiency. Search for a King. When one is found, verify that it's either an undefended enemy King or an unattacked friend King. If that verification succeeds, continue searching for the other King. Check whether it's either an undefended enemy King or an unattacked friend King. If that verification succeeds, the move can proceed. So, it works like this. A second move is allowed only if neither King is in check. So, this ends a turn when the first move is a check, and it forces a player to get out of check on the first move.
I've had an additional thought on how to make a Marseillais Chess ZRF more optimized. Between each player's first and second move, have a dummy player check whether either King is in check, placing a piece on a specified location if either King is in check, and clearing the same space if no King is in check. Then on the second move, each piece just verifies that this space is empty before moving. This will eliminate a whole lot of overhead caused by multiple checks of whether any King is in check. It might also be useful to use two spaces instead of one. Checking both spaces could be done with an or. Doing this would reduce a bit of overhead. There could be two dummy players, a white dummy and a black dummy. Each could first check for a marker indicating that it's side is in check. If so, it would check whether it's still in check. If it was empty, it would not have to check whether it's in check. In either case, it would check whether it's side has placed the other side in check. Another advantage of this would be the presence of visible check indicators for each side. Zillions does not normally tell you when you're in check. This would be a nice side effect of implementing the game in this way.
Okay, I'll see what I can do. I believe it's doable, though some things might work out differently in the details.
I have completed Zillions implementation of a simplified version of Marseillais Chess, which I call Simple Marseillais Chess. Implementing the rules for en passant would have been very tricky, and there seems to be nothing I can do about getting it to accept checkmate as a goal. So I just let myself create a new version of the game, then implemented that. The simplified version is played like Chess with these differences: 1. Each Player normally has two moves per turn. 2. The second move of a turn is allowed only when no Kings are in check. 3. Although a Pawn may move twice in a turn, it may not make the two-step initial move available in Chess. 4. Pawns may not capture each other by en passant. 5. The object is to capture the enemy King. 6. 3-times repetition is a loss. 7. A player who cannot move must pass.
My ZRF for Simple Marseillais Chess is now improved. I previously had it check for check with extra moves by each King. This had the disadvantage of giving the human player extra work to do on some occasions. The game would be stalled until the human clicked on the space for the check marker. Checking for check is now taken care of by a third player. But it is still done with the same moves. The third player checks for check by making moves with the Kings belonging to each side. This is done by including items in the turn-order like (bot White check-move) and (bot Black check-move). As it happens, attacked? works with the player who owns the piece, not the player who moves the piece. So when bot moves the White King, it can use attacked? to check whether the White King is attacked. And when bot moves the Black King, it can use attacked? to check whether the Black King is attacked. The advantage of doing these checks with a third player is that human players no longer have to attend to the check marker. One disadvantage, though it's questionable how much of a disadvantage this is, is that Zillions now plays a weaker game. It played an even weaker game when I used ?bot instead of bot. But this may at least give human players a better chance of appreciating the game without being quickly beaten by the computer. I hope that increasing the thinking time will provide challenging enough play. If it's just not challenging enough, one can always remove bot from the turn-order and just attend to the check marker when necessary.
Chancellor. Moves like rook or as knight.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]The name Mars gives us the word martial, but it does not give us the word marshal. These two homonyms are etymologically unrelated.
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.