[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments by João Neto
I made that game a long time ago (2-3 years) but I think that you could have a Queen just if you promote a pawn. In the setup, the Queen is too powerful on such small board.
Hi Antoine I wish to thank you to implement Slide Chess. One problem: Each cage begins on the last player row, you must switch cages in the setup (this is to avoid direct attacks to the enemy tower)
Hi, indeed Roberto got it right in his ZRF. The idea is that the remaining sliding square should not be at the opposite edge (so, it will not go out of bounds). Both sliding squares must be diagonally or orthogonally adjacent to the main 6x7 board. The last pushed square on the 6x7 board can have pieces, except a King. Sorry about the wording, natural language can be though :-) Joao Neto
the pawn can be inside a cage, eg: 8 [O] ( ) 7 . n b k b n r 6 . p p p p p p 5 . . . . . . . 4 . . . . . . . 3 . O O O O O O 2 R N B K B N R 1 a b c d e f g h i now, if that cage is inserted into the board, the pawn will be at the last row and will be promoted. Since the cage may belong to the adversary, it is the mover that decides the promotion, not the owner
yes, that's right. Inside the cages they are in a non-zone regarding promotions, as the typical place inside most companies :-)
The 1st point (check using a cage insertion) is correct. However, the 2nd point may happen. A pawn inside a cage can be promoted by an insertion. Check the comments in the game webpage. Once again, thanks for your work on the ZRF :-)
Not yet... Only the future may tell you for sure :-)
I didn't understand the winning condition. How the game ends? If the goal is stated in a sufficient abstract way, this may be a general mutator for games with movement.
Even with Greg's extra rule, I think the game will create many passive positions. You could restrict the switch option to non-royal pieces, so the King could not switch (and so, couldn't easily escape eventual attacks). Also, check Swap Chess (www.chessvariants.com/diffmove.dir/swap.html) as a similar CV concept.
That's a good idea. But it probably would mean that both players would try to keep their queens near an adjacent piece, so they can create a new King while demoting the previous King (if attacked) to a queen and escape the attack. And this tactic could continue in a cycle. Usually, I don't like this type of thing (ie, multiple Kings, demoting royal pieces, ...).
Well, 14 knights is indeed a powerful army, but takes time to make it. The other player may develop is own pieces in comfortable positions. But that's the spirit of abchess, see the position and reshape your own army accordingly.
Your rule seems appropriate. These original rules create too much havoc on the position, and make medium-term strategies difficult to plan. At that time, I start playing a better variant of the same idea: Balanced Swap Chess (http://www.chessvariants.org/diffmove.dir/balancedswap.html). In this variant, the moving ability is much more constrained: only one swap per move. Thanks for your comments! If you like to try a game of balanced swap chess, email me.
>did you consider the basic one-step swap which I described in Switching >Chess? To be honest, I don't remember :-) But I guess not, usually I tend to create faster games that FIDE chess, and by allowing just one move per turn (which might be a swap) my intuition tells me that it would be harder to mate a swapping king (of course, I may be wrong). Anyway, I don't recall ever tried the rules of Switching Chess on my chess ruminations. >I described Switching Chess before I knew of Swap Chess or Balanced Swap >Chess, however, I later found an applet by Ed Friedlander called Swap >Chess 1 that is almost identical to Switching Chess and predated it, >yet it is not attributed to you. I suppose Ed Friedlander read about swap chess here at chessvariants.org. He has applets of other games of mine (like magnetic or capture-the-flag chess). I think that applet implements Balanced Swap Chess. >I guess I am not sure about the originality of Switching Chess vis-a-vis >Swap Chess. This seems a case of convergent invention. The idea is too simple and will probably be 'found' many other times. Eventually, it was already invented before 1998. Cheers,
David Pritchard's death is a loss (every death is) but his work on chess variants is very much alive and, hopefully, will continue to be fruitful for a long time. I feel that chessvariants.org and its community of users (the only ones that give some meaning to this collection of information) is a remarkable tribute to his previous, pre-internet work, 'the Encyclopedia of Chess Variants'. May our interest be a persistent thank you.
[I just saw this question now] Indeed that situation was not specified by the original rules. I would say: (a) if a player forms a friendly link and also an enemy link, he wins; (b) if he forms just an enemy link, he loses.
A mutator language must be typed. Not all mutators go with each other. Some mutators deal with turns (like progressive mutators), others deal with pieces (eg, apply [Real] to chess king], and so on... This should ease the job of the programmer as well as the language designer.
Hi Richard. Thanks for that taxonomic work. The harder part is too make those concepts glue together. How to translate those ideas into types and how to compose those types into a game.
17 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.