Check out Smess, our featured variant for February, 2025.


[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ]
[ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ]
[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]

Ratings & Comments

EarliestEarlier Reverse Order LaterLatest
Monochromatic Chess. Pieces remain on squares of the same color. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Peter Aronson wrote on Wed, Apr 10, 2002 08:10 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
Here's an amusing possible solution to the problems with this variant: combine it with <a href='../other.dir/alice.html'>Alice Chess</a>. <p> Here's how it might go. You add a second board, like in Alice Chess, except the 2nd board has reversed checkering: a1 is white, not black. When a piece's move would otherwise cause it to move to a square of a different color, it instead lands on the equivalent square of the other board. Thus Knights always switch boards when they move, and Bishops never switch boards. <p> There are a number of ways to handle switching boards: <p> <ul> <li>Alice Chess-style. The move on the board on which the piece starts must be legal as in orthochess, and the square on the other board must be empty.</li> <p> <li>The Plunge. A piece moving to another color may only to move to a square that is empty on their current board, then they plunge through the board to the equivalent square on the other board, capturing any opposing pieces they land on, except for Pawns who may not plunge to occupied squares.</li> <p> <li>The Switch-a-roo. A piece makes a normal orthochess move on the board on which it starts, and then, if the destination square is of a different color than the piece's starting square, it moves to an equivalent position on the other board. If the space on the other board is occupied, then the piece occupying that space is moved to the space just landed on on the board that the moving piece started on. This version actually allows Bishops on the 2nd board.</li> <p> <li>The Last Square. The piece's move is as normal, except that if the piece would land on a color of square different from which it started, the last square of its move is the equivalent space on the other board, and the move does not pass through what would be the final square of its move in orthochess. The last square on the board on which the board-changing piece moved from may be occupied by a friendly or opposing piece -- it doesn't matter as the moving piece does not pass through it. </ul> <p> I don't know which would be best.

The Game of Nemoroth. For the sake of your sanity, do not read this variant! (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
ben wrote on Thu, Apr 11, 2002 07:15 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
Question: can a wounded friend move over (but obviously not stop on) a
square occupied by a mummy?  i am not sure.

if anybody wants to try this game with me by email, send to
good7972@hotmail.com

Feeble Chess to Weakest Chess. Some Chess variants with weaker pieces. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
David Howe wrote on Thu, Apr 11, 2002 01:02 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
I wish I had thought of this! The idea of finding the weakest possible pieces that still provide a chess-like game is inspired. For some reason, it reminded me of my attempt to create a <a href='../newideas.dir/construction.html'>chess variant construction set</a>. The concept of a flipping move to switch between capture-only and move-only is something I never thought of. On the whole, a well-thought-out, and aesthetically pleasing game. I must try it out sometime!

Rook-Level Chess[Subject Thread] [Add Response]
David Howe wrote on Thu, Apr 11, 2002 03:28 PM UTC:
It's an interesting idea, but would make for a more positional game with more trading off of material. I would recommend these Rook-level pieces perhaps for larger variants which would still include the usual knights and bishops.

Chigorin Chess. White has knights instead of bishops and a chancellor for his queen; black has bishops instead of knights. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
gnohmon wrote on Thu, Apr 11, 2002 03:33 PM UTC:
Okay, but I don't believe that the Chancellor is worth less than the Q. The
midgame forking power of a piece that moves in 12 directions is quite
amazing, the Chancellor has exceptional ability to save an inferior game by
giving perpetual check, and finally,

the drawn cases of K+Q versus K+P are wins in the endgame K+NR vs K+P.

Of course there are positions that favor the Q, but all in all, my
experience says they are equal.

Rook-Level Chess[Subject Thread] [Add Response]
Peter Aronson wrote on Thu, Apr 11, 2002 03:35 PM UTC:
Of course, there is the issue that on a larger board, since leapers are weakened, most of these pieces are probably not quite Rook-level anymore. One piece I do want to try in a larger variant someday is the NH (Knight + (3,0) leaper), since the H portion of the move would allow it to move around a 10x10 board slightly faster than a Knight moves around an 8x8 board.

MonoChrome Alice[Subject Thread] [Add Response]
David Howe wrote on Thu, Apr 11, 2002 03:38 PM UTC:
Continuing Peter's idea from his 'Alice Chess' comment on <a href='../diffmove.dir/monochro.html'>Monochromatic Chess</a>... <p>I don't like the idea that Bishops would be restricted to their initial board. Perhaps giving the bishops a non-capturing wazir move would fix this. Option 3 is also a nice idea (the switch-a-roo). <p>On the whole, I like this set of ideas. Perhaps it can be developed, with some play-testing, into a workable variant of Alice Chess, although Alice Chess itself is difficult enough to play... :)

Rook-Level Chess[Subject Thread] [Add Response]
gnohman wrote on Thu, Apr 11, 2002 04:01 PM UTC:
Rook-Level Chess is a very nice idea. Of course, the Queen isn't
R-level...

As for K+ND versus K, confining the K is tricky but it can be done.

Example: BKb8 WKc6, White ND e4, Black's move 1...Kc8 2. Nd6+ Kb8 3. Kb6
Ka8 4. NDc8+ Kb8 5. NDc6+ and 6. ND a6 mate.

The Game of Nemoroth. For the sake of your sanity, do not read this variant! (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
gnohmon wrote on Thu, Apr 11, 2002 04:08 PM UTC:
A Wounded Fiend (not 'friend' unless you are a truly scary creature) is
impeded by mummies, as indeed a Rook would be. Notice also that it cannot
retrace its steps because of its own ichor, and therefore, as Azgoroth once
said, 'carries within it the seeds of its own destruction'. (The endgame
where each side has one Wounded Fiend and nothing else can be quite
interesting.)

This game is tough to get used to. For a while I thought I had made a major
rules error, but in fact when a Leaf Pile engulfs, the mummy does not
appear until it moves on, and so the Leaf Pile is vulnerable to being
engulfed by an enemy Leaf Pile. If it were not so, the first player would
attack with Leaf Pile (engulfing his own Human for greater speed) and win
by force.

Feeble Chess to Weakest Chess. Some Chess variants with weaker pieces. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
gnohmon wrote on Thu, Apr 11, 2002 04:15 PM UTC:
I am grateful for your effusive comments.

There will be more on the subject, as I like the game and have analyzed the
Weakest K versus Weakest King endgame -- it was very interesting.

But at the moment, I've gotten out a chessboard and some coins (with which
to mark mummies and statues) and am studying the play of the Game of
Nemoroth.

MonoChrome Alice[Subject Thread] [Add Response]
Peter Aronson wrote on Thu, Apr 11, 2002 04:53 PM UTC:
There's an idea for the Bishop's move -- give it a colorbound Wazir's move, so that it can only use it to change boards. Just repeat that term: <i>A colorbound Wazir's move</i>. I love to be able to say that and have it mean something

Feeble Chess to Weakest Chess. Some Chess variants with weaker pieces. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Doug Chatham wrote on Thu, Apr 11, 2002 04:56 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
If we created higher dimensional analogues of the Feeble/Weak/Weakest
pieces, would we be able to make a playable higher-dimensional CV with them
(perhaps even a Chess For Any Number of Dimensions)?

General Comments Page. Page for making general comments.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Peter Aronson wrote on Thu, Apr 11, 2002 08:17 PM UTC:
Hey, David. Somehow my last comment in the 'Rook-Level Chess' thread turned into its own 'Rook-Level' thread (no 'Chess'). Any ideas? <p><i>Hey Peter, I think it's fixed. There was an issue with spaces I think. Time will tell...</i>

Rook-Level Chess[Subject Thread] [Add Response]
Peter Aronson wrote on Thu, Apr 11, 2002 08:42 PM UTC:
Thanks for the end-game! I deliberately left the Queen out of the leveling so as not to make thinks <strong>too</strong> uniform. <p> I wonder if the the <b>Rook-Level Chess I</b> army vs the <b>Rook-Level Chess II</b> army would be a balanced form of Chess with Different Armies? I would think so, but the <b>RLC II</b> army does have a significant 'can mate' advantage. Does it matter?

The Game of Nemoroth. For the sake of your sanity, do not read this variant! (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
gnohmon wrote on Thu, Apr 11, 2002 08:51 PM UTC:
Oops. It seeme I misremembered what the Spirit told me in my dream, for
when I tried to play the game it was too easy to end up in an impasse with
no good way to break it; and the reason was clearly that the Go Aways were
not performing their intended role.

Then I tried a few games in which the Go Away moved by leaping two squares
Rookwise or by moving one square diagonally, and things seemed to work much
better -- in fact, just about exactly right, in conformance to the original
vision of the game.

It is funny how the Wounded Fiend seems to be such an unimportant piece,
when it was the original inspiration for the game.

Under 'Interactions', it should be added that

'Leaping pieces can cross unharmed a square seen by a Basilisk, for their
talons never touch the ground and therefore the Basilisk does not see
them.'

The interactions are so complicated! I need to make a chart to see if I
left anything else out.

Feeble Chess to Weakest Chess. Some Chess variants with weaker pieces. (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
gnohmon wrote on Thu, Apr 11, 2002 08:53 PM UTC:
Because they are so weak, the Feeble/Weakest pieces would do well on a 3x3x8 board, I think.

The Game of Nemoroth. For the sake of your sanity, do not read this variant! (8x8, Cells: 64) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
The Editor in Yellow wrote on Thu, Apr 11, 2002 09:05 PM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
Addition to Interactions made as requested. Did you also mean to add a diagonal step move to the Go Away? <p> <br> <i>(Fnord)</i>

gnohmon wrote on Thu, Apr 11, 2002 09:11 PM UTC:
Under 'compelled Moves', there should be a final notice that 

'Sometimes it is possible to make a saving move with some other piece than
the compelled one. For example, suppose that your Basilisk has been pushed
onto an occupied square, and so is compelled to move off, but has no legal
move; if you can engulf your own Basilisk with a leaf pile, you have
removed the condition causing the compulsion, and therefore you have saved
the game.'

And, under 'Interactions',

'If a Go Away which is compelled to flee an enemy Ghast is next to the
Ghast, it can scream GO AWAY! instead of moving. It ends its turn one move
further away than it started and so it has met the compulsion to flee.

A Leaf Pile which is next to a Ghast can engulf the Ghast; as it then no
longer needs to flee, its compulsion has been satisfied.'

The Editor in Yellow wrote on Thu, Apr 11, 2002 09:21 PM UTC:
Thy bidding done once more, Oh Gnohmon.

Quantum Chess ZIP file. Commercial variant with new pieces on 10 by 10 and 12 by 12 boards.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
📝Robert Price wrote on Fri, Apr 12, 2002 12:53 AM UTC:
updated March 30, 2002: Corrected the Bowman move (it wasn't registering
when the square to capture was off-board).

updated April 7, 2002: Corrected castling in Quantum-0, -I (one side was
impossible, both sides ignored intervening pieces.  Argh.)

Revisiting the Crooked Bishop. Revisiting the Crooked Bishop.[All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]
Peter Hatch wrote on Fri, Apr 12, 2002 02:47 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
<blockquote>Would 0.91 times 0.7 times 0.7 be correct? Yes, this is the answer to 'it can move there if either d2 or f2 is empty AND e3 is empty AND the corresponding square (d4 if d2, or f4 if f2) is empty'.</blockquote> This isn't right (I think). It can move there if e3 is empty and either d2 and d4 are empty or f2 and f4 are empty. So that's 0.7 * (1 - (1 - 0.49) * (1 - 0.49) ), which works out to 0.51793, as compared to 0.4459. I think the generalized equation, where X is the (always even) number of squares moved, would be 0.7^(X/2 - 1) * (1 - (1 - 0.7^(X/2))^2)

Peter Hatch wrote on Fri, Apr 12, 2002 03:18 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
I think the way to find the on-board probability is to divide it into two parts. The on-board probablity for having two paths on a (X,0) (where X is any even number) move would be (X,2). The probability for having just one path on a (X,0) move would be (X,6) (on a 8x8 board, generally (X,board size - 2)). I think this works - moving two squares up the board can be done on all but the last two rows, and has two paths on all but the outer two columns.

Peter Hatch wrote on Fri, Apr 12, 2002 03:43 AM UTC:
If I'm right in the previous two comments (and if I've done the calculations right), the mobility is 9.7.

gnohmon wrote on Fri, Apr 12, 2002 04:23 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★
Excellent for the feedback, that is.

You have no idea how hungry I have been for so many years to find a
mathematician or statistician who would be in the mood to criticize my
numbers or my methods and point out the errors that must be there.

With all due respect, I give you this instant reply, but I do not examine
the specifics of what you said nor do I respond to them. I am in the midst
of other things and not in condition to reply.

I give you my double-barrelled platinum promise that the specific numeric
algorithmic probabilistic things you said will be closely and extensively
examined by me and that a serious reply will be forthcoming.

Meanwhile, literary criticism of your reply suggests that you agree with my
basic method but merely cavil at a few of my specific applications. Is this
right? If so, I celebrate. If not, I cerebrate.

If you haven't read my general 'theory of piece values', please please do
and if you can (though I hope you can't) tell me I'm full of it.

The general public here believes in my numbers more than I believe in my
numbers. Perhaps you can have the deciding vote, since paolo has declined
to speak up.

Did you know that a giant standing on a midget's shoulders can see further?
Well, in doing this math stuff about piece values let me tell you I've
always felt like a midget. But right now I can only write silly answers. I
just spent a few hours writing serious. The promises I made in previous
paragraphs are serious, though.

YellowJournalism[Subject Thread] [Add Response]
gnohmon wrote on Fri, Apr 12, 2002 04:50 AM UTC:
Dear 'Editor in Yellow',

Programmers who have junketed to i18n fora know that col[u]rs have various
meaning in various cultures. For example, in Italian, yellow is the color
of mystery.[1]

http://www.panix.com/~gnohmon/nemofull.html is a text which should be added
as a supplemental and corrective link, but not just yet. My apologies for
having made so many errors and rewrites and addenda.

http://www.panix.com/~gnohmon/nemofull.html should be read and criticized
by our critical public until a critical mass of agreement is reached, and
then the editor should step in, whether yellow or dark sea green 3.

http://www.panix.com/~gnohmon/nemofull.html should soon be on the cv pages,
but first the multitude should fish in it for errors and omissions. 

http://www.panix.com/~gnohmon/nemofull.html should someday be
authoratative, but meanwhile, please allow me to grovel and cringe, O great
Editor who knows not his ablative from his elboh, may I humbly beg you to
please change for me one great omission in the original Nemoroth file?

As stated in http://www.panix.com/~gnohmon/nemofull.html, repetition of
position is forbidden! Your humble supplicant is humbled with shame, how
can I have omitted to say this? I be so ipse dissed that I'd almost seppuku
but no, so much better to tofuku. I have disemboweled a bean curd to
express my embare-ass-ment.

By all means, treat http://www.panix.com/~gnohmon/nemofull.html as
authoritative, and please accept from this humble supplicant a case of root
beer, or if you prefer, a single bottle of Hennepin.

25 comments displayed

EarliestEarlier Reverse Order LaterLatest

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.