Comments by joejoyce

My info is that invent and play is defunct - I tried to get in with
hyperchess. I'd be happy to trade games with you.
                                                     Joe Joyce

I can tell you from personal experience that a planar-type piece is even
more powerful in 4D chess than in 3D. I would also recommend a smaller
board than 8x8x8x8. The problem with any planar-type piece is that it's
so powerful that you have to clog the board up with lesser pieces to
prevent instant checkmates. The more powerful the strong pieces, the more
plentiful the weak pieces is a really easy and very bad trap to fall into,
if you want a game that can be played by humans. And simple leapers work
fine in 4D. I used a knight that no longer has the leaping ability, and it
kicks butt, for my version of hyperchess. In 2D, you can add a lot of
pieces; the complications are in piece interaction. By the time you get to
4D, the board provides a good bit of the complication, so the pieces should
be simple, to balance. In hyperchess (does this need a new name - am I
infringing - how does Hyperchess 4D sound - that's what I thought). In
H4D only the standard 8 pieces and 8 pawns per side are used, on a 4x4x4x4
board, giving a starting piece density of 12.5%. And the movement rules are
basically simple translations from 2 to 4D. I would argue that good
movement rules and piece densities are very board-dependent. Ok, guess
I'm saying geometry-dependent, both the topology and the exact
measurements (as I'm finding out in a variant that mixes 2D-moving and
4D-moving pieces; ie: some pieces treat the board as 2D, some as 4D, and
some may choose.)
Is there a more appropriate forum for this discussion? Guess I'm too new
to know.                               Joe

The bishop 'color-change' moves pretty much need to be capturing moves.
The extremely low piece density and the change in the pawn's move/capture
basically force this. The pieces need to be sort of 'sticky' to balance
the density; and the somewhat stronger pawns (2 pawns can support each
other)to an extent force the stronger bishop. I think the knight is also
stronger, but this is because the geometry of a 4x4x4x4 board favors a
piece that moves [+/- 1, +/- 2,0,0]. Stronger relative to the rook in this
game, that is. I'm not sure how a rook in this game compares in 'actual'
strenght to a 2D or 3D rook. The size of the board, small, favors the power
of the rook.

Thanks for the comment. The king hold rule took me about 2 years to come
up with.

I am not understanding these 2 sentences:
'The queen may not move into or through check - except to capture the
enemy queen. This is like the king in chess, which may never move into
check except to capture the enemy king...'
How can a royal piece capture its' opposite number without first putting
both itself and the opponent's royal piece in check, which I always
thought was illegal? I'd love to at least push the pieces around for this
game, (especially since it's destined, apparently, to be in the 2nd
tournament) but until I understand the above 2 sentences, I can't.
Someone please explain.

About 8ish, Eastern Standard Time, New Year's eve, while I was waiting for
my wife to get ready to go out, I was looking at Hans Bodlaender's
pictures and 'variants' for what may be the world's cheapest (and
worst) chess set. They were so enjoyable I posted a comment about them
brightening up an otherwise quiet time in my evening. The date stamp
showed I was the first post on Jan. 1, 2005. It's one thing to announce
to the world you're a geek by designing a chess game that only you think
is 4 dimensional, but it's a whole 'nother thing to have the site
you're trying to gain some credibility on (and I'm sure this is not
helping) announce to the world that you've got nothing better to do at
midnight and beyond New Year's day than look at chess variants. While
this may be true - I've had much worse New Years' - it would be nice if
the date stamp were accurate. ;)

Fergus; some thoughts on Bachelor Chess.
	I  went to bed swearing I would not get involved in this, but I woke up
thinking about geometry and Bachelor Chess. I believe the geometry of the
board is a key factor in any game, the first factor to make or break a
game. So, I set up and played your first variant a bit. First, I assumed
the board is a checkerboard, with a white square on the white player's
right corner, so I covered the original 'A' file and set the pieces up.
Both white bishops are on white squares, both black bishops on black; an
interesting asymmetry. The white king starts on a black square; and the
black, on a white, as are their castling squares. Here are two openings I
played:
1)	d4		d5
2)	f1-e3		e6 rather than c6, allowing check
3)	e1-b4		f1-d2 white attempts trade of B for N, black   
declines, but N placement blocks Bs
4)	b3		b7
5)	c4		c5
6)	Pxc5		Pxc5
7)	b4-a5 check	e7-b6 if 7) ... d8-e7, 8) PxP PxP 9) NxP check
8)	BxN check	PxB
9)	PxP		PxP
10)	NxP		a8-a6
white may continue by castling or by c1-g5 check, with much the better
game
The way this played out, I felt black should not directly contest the
center of the board with 1) ... d5
The second opening:
1)	d4		e3 
2)	c1-f4		b8-c6
3)	c3		d5
4)	b1-d2		b6
5)	e4		c8-b7
6)	PxP		PxP
7)	f1-e3		c6-e7
8)	BxP check	KxB probably a serious blunder on white's part
9)	c3-c4		a8-d8
10)	PxP		NxP possibly better if ... BxP
11)	NxN check	BxN
12)	O-O check	e8-c6 white has a passed pawn that is going nowhere fast for
a lost bishop

As I am not the best of players, and cannot play chess against myself,
these openings are not of the highest quality - the B sacrifice, in
particular, was poor, as it could not be followed up. White may actually
have an edge in this variant, but I am certainly not good enough to 
tell, only to suspect this is the case.
However, I do get some clearer impressions of this variant. I think the geometry
is important, as I feel these games are not as subtle as FIDE chess. Two
of six non-royal pieces can never directly interact*, yet they attack the
two most likely squares the opponent's king will occupy. Checks appear to
be easier in the opening. I always had the urge to trade one of my bishops
for the 'opponent's' knight, believing this is advantageous. I think
the openings and patterns of threats are considerably reduced, and less
subtle, because of the geometry. The game gives me more the feel of a
bludgeon than a rapier. This could be because of my style of play,
however. I do believe the knight is worth more than the bishop, and I'd
definitely prefer to have 2 knights and 1 bishop against 2 bishops and 1
knight. I would also think this admittedly very preliminary analysis has some
relevance for your other 7x8 variants and the 58 square variants, 
as the geometry is basically similar. I would suggest a variant of this
game on a 7x9 board, but I wonder if the draw potential goes up. For what
my opinion is worth, I think this is an interesting variant, but FIDE
chess is better, and better because of its' geometry. The 8x8 board
allows better pawn moves in the opening and balances the bishops.
*This would seem to increase the subtlety on the surface, but that's not
the impression I got moving pieces.
I see Peter Aronson** and Doug Chatham anticipated a couple of my observations. 
To Doug, I believe the answer to your question is: 'yes'.
To Peter, I'm real new at this, could you direct me to your sources? Thanks. 
**My error on confusing Spinster queens and Sinister queens - 
apparently Mr. Aronson does not confirm my suspicion that white has 
the advantage in the 7x8 variants, as Sinister Queens is 8x8.

Shatranj to Modern Chess, step by step.
In the course of my tournament game of Shatranj with Roberto Lavieri, and
the current game of Modern Shatranj we're playing, I've had opportunity
to think about the steps between Shatranj and today's chess. I believe
there are 6 basic steps between the two games in movement, and maybe 3 in
promotion rules. Each movement step changes Shatranj somewhat, giving a
playable game, when the steps are presented in reasonable order. Promotion
changes also affect the game, but they are not as basic, and may be
'folded in' to the movement changes. Promotion goes from only generals
to generals and lost pieces to freely-chosen pieces. 

Shatranj has 7 non-royal pieces, 5 of which are short range. Modern chess
(orthochess) has 7 non-royal pieces, 5 of which are long range. So, in
shatranj, the pieces are relatively weak; in chess, strong. In reasonable
order, the steps between shatranj and chess are:
1) The general (queen) goes from 1 square diagonally only to the king's
move. This is the least change from shatranj.
2) The elephant (bishop) goes from a 2-square diagonal jump (allowing it
only 8 positions on the board) to a 1-square diagonal move and the
2-square jump. At some point, the jump is lost, but probably later than
this.
3) Castling is allowed.
4) The double first move of pawns is allowed. En passant logically comes
here, as an adjunct to the double step, rather than a seperate step,
occurring later.
5) The bishops gain their modern move, and lose their jump, although an
interesting variant would allow them a 2-square jump with capture of the
intervening piece.
6) The queen gains her modern move, creating modern chess.
While numbers 3 and 4 may be reversed, these 6 steps are, pretty much, the
least (remaining) change from the previous step toward modern chess. 

Modern Shatranj incorporates the first 2 steps and intermediate promotion
rules, making a 'strong' Shatranj. Using steps 1 through 4 and freer
promotion would likely give a game that is still Shatranj-like but more
modern in some aspects of play. It would be a Hypermodern Shatranj. Steps
1 through 5 and totally free promotion would give us an Old Chess variant.


This is not meant as a history of chess, which I don't know, but a
speculation on how chess could evolve, and a way to see the effects of the
increasing range and power of the pieces. Is this worth putting in as a
variant? Or has this all been done before, and better?

Congrats on getting the site back up. We've missed it. 
There are a few questions that beg to be asked, in 2 categories:
   What happened, and why, and we don't expect this again, do we?
   How will the tournament be adjusted for time?
Again, great to see this site back up. Thanks for your efforts. Sincerely.

Is there anything the members can do to help avoid site problems?

A few thoughts:
	There are 2 equally valid ways of moving chess to higher dimensions:
'extending' or 'expanding', with extending being linear and expanding
being planar. Linear pieces are weaker, and planar pieces very much take
on the character of the 'Mad Queen', in being so much more powerful than
their 2D brethern. However, 'planar pieces' may be inherently too
powerful as a concept - consider the extension to 4D, where a rook would
move in a 3D volume of its' own choice, there being 4 different 3D
volumes this hypothetical rook could move in. Even in 3D, the actual
planar pieces used are the most limited and weak version. The strongest
planar piece could get to a location if any one of all its' possible
paths were open. An average planar piece could get to a location if at
least half the possible paths are open. The weakest planar piece is one
that is blocked by merely a single piece. (This is somewhat like damming a
river by throwing a stone into it.) Now it's true that using the weakest
possible planar pieces makes it easier to visualize moves, but using more
powerful versions of planar pieces should shorten the games and make
checkmate noticably easier. This approach may eliminate the 'need' for
restricting the king to get a reasonable chance to mate, if the 'weak'
planars still have trouble. You might also consider 3D movers, in a
'weakened' piece form, as, for example, a 'baby 3D rook' that could
move to any open square within a 5x5 cube centered on the piece, just as
the king can move to any square in a 3x3 cube centered on it. Of course,
this 'baby 3D rook' would require at least an 8x8x8 board to dilute
its' power. This rook, guarded by a friendly piece should be able to move
next to the enemy king and mate it.
	The 6x6x6 shatranj 3D sounds interesting. I, too, have been looking at
shatranj pieces for the past few months, and, with C. Bagley-Jones, have
made a 'Shatranj Capablanca' variant, with a knight-alfil and a
knight-dababba; and have also, for Modern Shatranj, tried out 2 'new'
pieces, the knight-ferz and knight-wazir, which seem to work quite nicely.
 I'd expect that short-range pieces in a 3D shatranj game would find it
useful to have those little 'extra' moves. And I think 6x6x6 is probably
about a perfect size for a 3D board. I'd be interested in playtesting such
a game.
	Finally (I hear echoes of 'about time!'), the not-so-elusive king.
Designing a sitting-duck king, as has been done, may not be the best way
to increase mates. I will, once again, float the idea of a 'king hold'
rule. I did a 4D game, 4x4x4x4, using linear pieces and an extremely low
piece density; and the king was all but uncatchable, even though it could
move to only 16 locations. The game could not be won by a king and 3
queens vs a bare king. Effectively, I had no game until the king hold
rule. The board is laid out as 16 4x4 2D boards, and the king hold rule
states that a king, moving onto the same 2D board as the opponent's king,
prevents the opponent's king from moving off that board, until the
'holding' king either moves or is chased off that board. This allows a
standard 2D checkmate, with no 'extra' pieces required. While this is a
restriction of the king's move, it is only temporary, and to maintain the
restriction on the opponent's, one must move one's own king into
potential danger and restrict its' move in the same way. This method
seems easily adaptable to 3D.

Dear Annoying:
    Are you telling me that, 50 years ago, my second grade teacher, Sister
Mary Ruler, was wrong when she drilled the class in possessives? I quote:  
 ''It's' means 'it is'; 'its'' means  'that belongs to it'.' 

     I hereby confess to over-punctuating, as I have already confessed to
having trouble with names. Suggestions for names would be appreciated (but
I remind you this is a family site), and will be considered.
     
     Finally, I would like to thank Mr. Gifford and Mr. Pedant for their
comments. As my computer skills are about as obsolete as my English usage,
it may be a while before I can add rules illustrations or presets, much as
I would like to do so.