[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
just a short response to the last comment. The sliding bishop's non-capturing move do not seem to include the camel, Since it is bishop plus optional wizir, it must be a n-n move or a color changing one, neither of which include the camel.
When I first read the rule for The Cube, I had assumed it was a piece that changed hands (using a Reversi piece) on the board, and the question I had was: How does a Cube move? Now I see that it's just an off-board marker, I'm disappointed. But I'm already ready for the first Variant on Luotuoqi: The Cube is a piece that moves like Ralph Betza's Ghost, and starts in the same square(s). Now if your opponent threatens to mate you with a double-ply move in two by tossing The Cube, you can unlock the game by threatening the Cube, forcing him to take his double-ply move off-tempo and/or abandon the attempt all together. Far-fetched, but fun to see, if only once.
When will the new Bishop be revealed?
<p>Inquiring minds wanna know.
In a very divided vote, the winner is the Diagonal Bypasser. A different method of counting votes might have given either the Sliding Bishop or Chaplain the nod. I'll add this to the page over the weekend. Thanks to everyone who has voted on New Rules so far; that poll closes on the 30th.
Anyone have comments on the new rules proposals, or at least the proposals made since the last time we adopted a New Rule?
Well, I was kind of holding off until the web site got updated to contain any new suggestions made since the beginning of May. Glenn said there was at least one.
That last proposal Robert is waiting for was emailed to the Camel Chess voters around June 8.
<p>It reads as follows:
<p>11. [Entrant 7] When a player captures part of their opponent's Tower of
Hanoi, they may optionally remove another part of it of equal or lesser
height from anywhere on the board.
::waving Hello:: My computer was down temporarily. I'll be up to speed Real Soon Now. Promise. ;)
One question, one plea: Question: Will any two Towers trigger the new promotion rule, or only two Towers of the same height? (I recommend the latter.) Plea: ZRFers out there, the time is upon us. We need someone to take up the formidable challenge of coding The Cube. Everything else appears to be moderately straightforward. If you can code The Cube for an otherwise standard game of chess, let me know. We'll beg and plead to let us put it into a Camel Chess ZRF. :) Glenn
OK, the cube is fairly straight-forward <strong>if</strong> (and <em>only</em> if) you don't mind having victory be by capture of the opposing King instead of checkmate, and you do away with stalemate. Then the logic isn't too bad -- it's a bit like the Ryu Shogi ZRF. There's two moves in a row for each player each turn, but the 2nd one is often not available. Unfortunately, this is a slight but real change in the rules form victory by checkmate, and it does play differently.
<p>
<hr>
<p>
On a different topic, the first two proposals for Rooks are, except for the name, the same piece. Shouldn't they be combined?
I have no objection to modifying the official Luotuoqi rules to use king-capture instead of checkmate for victory. If a majority of contributors concur, let it be so. ===== Entrant 3, the second to propose the Separate Realms Rook (under a different name), has withdrawn that entry in favor of Entrant 2's earlier independent submission. I'll make the change in a few minutes.
Two towers of the same height is probably easiest to code into the ZRF, and is probably best for keeping the checker population from getting out of hand. One other possibility that ocurred to me was that any two towers could be used for promotion, but the new tower would be the height of the smaller of the two. Other thougths?
OK, I'm attempting to code up a Cube Chess as a preliminary step. Now, what effect, if any, does the change in rules have on castling? My gut reaction would be it would remove the not in check or through or into check restriction. Thoughts?
OK, here's a stab at Cube Chess, ready for testing:
<p>
<ul>
<li>
<a href='../programs.dir/zillions/cube-chess.zip'>cube-chess.zip</a>
</ul>
<p>
Let me know if you find any bugs!
Well, it turns out that L. Lynn Smith has figured out an elegant approach that allows the cube to co-exist with checkmate, so there's no need to change things.
The estimable L. Lynn Smith has graciously agreed to do the ZRF for Camel Chess, once we finish defining it. He has a few questions about the Tower of Hanoi:
<p>
<ul>
<li>What is the maximum height of a stack of stones? With Eaglet promotion it is possible to get more than 8 stones on the board -- can a stack contain more than 8?
<p>
<li>Are the pieces of the Tower of Hanoi allowed to both break apart and merge with others in the same move? Or are the breaking moves and merging moves separate?
<p>
<li>And should the Tower be allowed to make capture moves when breaking apart?
</ul>
<p>
His preferences seem to be for a maximum of 8 stones in a Tower, and to not to allow merging and splitting in the same move, as it makes the game clearer without it.
The pawn rule voted on is that Eaglets do not promote--so no more than 8 stones can be on the board.
Ah, but Mike, you forgot:
<p>
<blockquote>
[Entrant 7] When a pawn is flanked by two adjacent pieces of the same type (not Kings), such that the three pieces form a straight line, either orthogonally or adjacently, with the pawn in the center, the pawn's owner may, as a turn, promote it to the type of piece flanking it. <i>(Example: there is a white knight on b3, a white pawn on c4, and a black knight on d5. White may, as a turn, replace the pawn on c4 with a white knight.)</i>(Adopted June 2003.)
</blockquote>
<p>
And later adopted rules supercede earlier rules, so Eaglets promote by the above method.
<p>Looking at Peter's questions...
<ol>
<li>What is the maximum height of a stack of stones? With Eaglet promotion it is possible to get more than 8 stones on the board -- can a stack contain more than 8?
<ul>
<li>I favor an 8 stone limit as well. I did not vote for the rule that won precisely because of its interaction with the Towers.
</ul>
<li>Are the pieces of the Tower of Hanoi allowed to both break apart and merge with others in the same move? Or are the breaking moves and merging moves separate?
<ul>
<li>I favor break-or-merge, but could live with break-and-merge.
</ul>
<li>And should the Tower be allowed to make capture moves when breaking apart?
<ul>
<li>I see no reason why not. Only one 'piece' is moving.
</ul>
</ol>
<p>Just my $.02...Glenn
OK, Glenn, but how do we decide minor rules points like these?
Do we take informal straw polls in the comment system? Or do
you as the project editor decide? Or do we save them all up
and have a big single 'finishing' vote?
<p>
Inquiring minds want to know.
<p>Peter inquired:
<blockquote>OK, Glenn, but how do we decide minor rules points like these? Do we take informal straw polls in the comment system? Or do you as the project editor decide? Or do we save them all up and have a big single 'finishing' vote?</blockquote>
<p>If we can get a clear consensus in the comment system, I'll edit it into the finished product. Otherwise I'm in favor of the save-em-up-and-vote final poll.
<p>Right now the questions are on the maximum height of a Tower and the legality of a Tower splitting and merging as one move. Any others I've forgotten? (The king-capture thing is off the table for now, I think.)
And the question of whether or not two Towers of different heights are identical pieces for the purpose of causing promotion. (I would say No...among other things, to which level does the Eaglet then promote? Answering Yes creates a new question.)
There was also the question of whether splitting moves could capture.
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.