Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

I learned this game as 'Hyperchess', with some rule differences:

1.  The upside-down rook is the coordinator and the right-side-up one is
the immobilizer.
2.  Pawns ('straddlers') can only capture by trapping a unit between
two
_pawns_, not a pawn and another friendly piece (though a chameleon and a
pawn or two chameleons) can capture an enemy pawn).  They also capture
passively: any enemy piece moving between two pawns dies instantly.
3.  Knights ('Striders') cannot make multiple captures.
4.  The withdrawer can only move back a single square when capturing.
5.  Coordinators can capture passively: the two squares in the rectangle
formed by the king and the coordinator are instant death for enemy
pieces.
 Coordinators can also capture pieces when the king moves.

Overall, I think the main effect of these differences (especially 2 and
4)
is that capturing is much more difficult.  The most noticeable difference
between 'hyperchess' and chess is that capturing is a very rare
occurrence in hyperchess.

Every game should be played by people that master the rules in order to
reach a theoretical depth. It's not serious to have discussion on rules -
this doesn't serve any purpose.

It's impossible to find some real game theory on Ultima in the Internet.
How about having it here, at the chessvariants pages? If there are any
experienced players around, perphaps they would like to gather
observations just in one place?

There is a better solution to 'Ultima Problem 9! The variant that I play does not allow for suicide, so barring this, the soluction is simply: White: LL at F8 -> G7, blocking all moves but a suicide, or leaping (LL H8 go have fun!)

White now threatens checkmate with LL G7->G6!

This brings up an important question of mine:

Do pieces in Baroque/Ultima have 'Kill zones' (areas of instantaneous vaporization) - That is, Do they create instant death in their 'kill zone' at all times, or must a piece move into a position to make the kill?

(ie: can my LL G7 move into G6 in above solution?)

Thanks

- Kris

Hi all, fans of ultima!

Here is the only site, as I know, which gives you the possibility to play ultima on-line in real time: http://adage-studio.com:8080/universal. Rules as the official rules, as published first by Abbott. You have to register in order to play. There are also two other ultima-like games: Rococo and Supremo.

I wish know whether you like the site. Suggestions are welcome.

A puzzle:
Immobilizer=0,
King=1,
Withdrawer=1,
Coordinator=2,
Pincer-Pawn=3,
Long-Leaper=3,

Question:Chameleon=?

I'm sorry, maybe, this question was already answered in one of previous comments, but i want to ask: how chameleon exactly captures? Wich of these statements is true:
1. It can capture several pieces of different kinds with method of one of these pieces (for example, captures by custodianship 1 pawn, 1 withdrawer and 1 long leaper).
2. It can capture several pieces of different kinds, each with capturing method of that piece (for example, it can withdrawl from withdrawer, moving itself, surrounding pawn, capturing both withdrawer and pawn).
3. Can capture pieces of only 1 kind with 1 move.
Probably, statement 2 is true, as here player never have to choose capturing method to use ater moving chameleon.

Apart from the Ultima piece symbols assigned to characters KMLXCWPkmlxcwp, it also contains symbols of a square (Ii) and a circle (Oo), which could be useful for other games (eg. Go).

Fascinating concept, the idea of pieces of homogenous movement
differentiated only by their capture method.

Perhaps not strictly a chess variant, but a unique subgenre in its own
right, & one that I feel deserves more popularity.

As for the game itself, there are some strange imbalances which I find
surprising; why allocate 2 slots for the powerful long leaper but give
pride of place next to the king to the feeble withdrawer as an standalone
piece? This is the kind of imbalance one sees in older prechess variants
but would not expect in a newer variant...

Another issue is the overly defensive nature of the game, with current
setup. Having 2 chameleons with no mutual attack method tends to stagnate
and cluster gameplay in my experience.

Also an issue is the increasing irrelevance of the pawns in endgames. They
of course have no promotion ability, which is not feasible for such mobile
pieces, and offer minimal threat to the FIDE king, due to its residual
ability to capture adjacent pieces.

I propose the following alterations;

1. Replace king movement with that of a knight. This adds variation to the
dynamic of the game and allows the pawns to present a threat to the king,
as they can now be positioned adjacent to it without fear of capture. This
also increases their relevance in endgames.

2. Replace the spare long leaper and chameleon with 2 pieces of offensive
type; advancer/displacer(orthodox FIDE queen)/queen moving cannon etc.

3. Allow the chameleon to capture king and pawns in the manner of their own
capture, but without being restricted to their movement types. This, along
with the inclusion of new powerful offensive pieces, which the chameleon
the acts as a counterbalance to, makes it a much more important standalone
piece, and serves as an important leveller against the power inequity of
different piece types.

4. (optional) Allow the withdrawer to capture from 2 spaces of distance
(this might make it a little difficult to counterract in opening play, but
a far more respectable piece overall) OR merge the withdrawer and advancer,
freeing up another piece slot.

These alterations would, in my opinion, add a much more open, fluid,
balanced, dynamic, and varied mechanic to an already excellent concept...

A question occured to me.
Methods of capturing are taken from non-chess board games.
Everybody know the family of games, overtaking from is.
Custodianship is from Tafl games, probably also well-known.
Withdrawing, if i did not confuse anything, is also from some checker-like board game (i don't remember it's name, region and time of playing).
But what about coordinating? Is it also from certain board game or invented by Abbott himself? And, maybe, immobilizing is also refrence to certain game?

Withdrawing is from Fanorona, played on Madagascar.  According to "Abbot's New Card Games", the Coordinator and the Immobilizer are original pieces, as is the Chameleon.

Ultima is a puzzling game in more than one sense. It seems to violate all rules for game invention. Even its inventor called it a flaw and his reasons are all pretty true. yet it is one of the most successful chesslike games, and its also one of my favorites.

First point, he says, it lacks clarity. Of course it does. Playing it does not feel like playing chess at all, its more like solving a puzzle in every turn, so for every move you need much much time. Does that make it a bad game? No, it doesnt. Its exactly what we like on it.

The other big point is, that it favors the defender. And so it does. This should lead to draws, at least at a high level of competition. But thats okay. Draughts and Morris are even more drawish, yet they are not bad games. If following an interesting fight it does not matter that much if it finally leads to a draw. 

Maybe it is even the lack of clarity that makes the game playable despite the strong defending power of its pieces.

I cant see that it is bad to advance your pieces rather than stay at home. The more space youve got the more mobility you have. And what is the biggest advantage of that? To be able to bring your immobilizer in a strong position.

That may be the only ugly thing of this game: that the immobilizer is too important. As far as my experience goes, he is the central piece in every successful attack. Immobilize the king and capture it with the chameleon. I rarely succeeded in winning in any other way.

But yet not ugly enough yo reduce my rating.