Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

I've edited my previous post extensively, adding in a couple of diagrams.

A note for Fergus: at some point you may wish to investigate some minor defects, namely with certain Black upside down Alfarie: Many piece figurines (actually showing right side up when used) that I mentioned in my previous post. To be specific, the ones I found so far were for the elephant figurines: ".ef!" and ".e!". Note that the White versions of these do properly show upside down when used.

An idea occured to me how I might make my Phoenix Chess variant idea more palatable, that is by using an alternative setup that I'll diagram below; I'm not sure if I'll have the kings move two or three squares sideways when castling to either side, but I'm inclined to still have them move three squares (if castling kingside, that would put the king where the rook would initially be). [edit: I now think moving the K three squares for queenside castling and moving it two squares for kingside castling may be best, e.g. to give the j-file phoenix more roon in case of kingside castling. P.S. Perhaps moving the K four squares to castle queenside, and moving it 3 squares to castle kingside, is an option, too.] The only problem might be if Game Courier somehow cannot handle this kingside castling possibility during play. This latest setup still has all pawns protected at the start, but would make smoothly developing the minor pieces more possible in a real game, it seems (btw, I did a minor edit on my last post that had diagrams); castling rules would be as for chess [edit: I'll have to think about using an analogous setup optionally in the case of my Hannibal Chess, Lieutenant Chess & perhaps even Frog Chess variant ideas also, but perhaps this could make for too many {test} diagrams or presets. P.S.: I thought about all this a bit, and it seems it's best to keep the rooks on the outer files in the case of these other 3 variants.]:

Kevin,Have you gave up using the frog> I'd personally like to have 2 variations of the game rather than chossing one or the other:)!

No, I haven't given up on the Frog Chess idea at all. I mentioned it in my last post, where I noted I'm now going to think about a third possible setup. However my aging variant idea of Gamma Chess (or its next version) I am giving up on as fatally flawed (I noted why in an edit to a much earlier post). The Berolina Capablanca Chess variant idea also seems unpalatable, as I also noted with an edit to it in a much earlier post. On the bright side, I have 4 variant ideas that I'm not yet rejecting, three of them with up to 3 possible setups each, it seems. :)

Kevin, First please excuse my ignorance. It seems I have skipped some of your comment.

Next, different initial positions, to me, don't seem much like different variants, for example my 2 apothecaries have 24 different initial positions but still each of them are one variant.

Fwiw, you're arguably right - the Capablanca Chess preset, for example, offers both the original and final 10x8 setups as options to choose from when playing that (single) chess variant.

I've added a couple of vital text edits to my last post with a diagram. I'm up too late, but couldn't sleep without first making these edits while they were on my mind.

Note to self:

After I slept on it, I'm thinking my 10x8 Phoenix Chess variant idea quite possibly has a significant defect, even with my latest setup, and no matter what castling rules are used (I added yet another option for such rules to think about, by an edit to my post with the latest setup diagrammed). The problem is that either side (perhaps Black will be more prone to disadvantage in this regard) could well have serious problems developing one or both of their phoenix' without sooner or later making some sort of significant concession, especially depending on the play of the opponent. Perhaps an exception would be if some or all of the phoenix' are developed rapidly at the beginning of a game, but this might not make for much variety in the opening phase (plus the Ns or phoenix' might then be best deployed to the b or i-file(s), due to e.g. enemy diagonal sliders, which might be seen as an ugly sort of concession, even if the opponent does the same). In light of this, I'm thinking maybe the original setup also has its points by comparison (e.g. if in that seup a N goes to the centre on the third rank and afterwards its adjacent phoenix takes a side-step, followed by making a second [and authentically] developing move).

I've edited my last post somewhat, for any who missed it. [edit: I'm currently not very thrilled with either setup for my Phoenix Chess variant idea. P.S.: It also seems that the Advance French analogue is good for White in the case of either Hannibal Chess setup, due to White playing 4.Ni1-h3 {with the idea 4...Pj7-j6 5.Nh3-j4} in the event of 3...Ph7-h5; this also would apply in the case of Lieutenant Chess' 2 setups still remaining under my consideration. However, with setups with the compound pieces on the c and h-files, 3...Pg7-g5 just might be viable in the case of either Hannibal Chess or Lieutenant Chess. [edit: In the case of these setups with the compound pieces on the c and h-files, after 1.Pf2-f4, the Centre Counter analogue (1...Pe7-e5) seems somewhat pleasant for Black{!} (plus bishops might be involved in early trades often in this setup, otherwise), maybe not quite the same in the case of Frog Chess, as e.g. White's Q is guarded by a Frog in the original setup of that variant idea. P.P.S.: I'm inclined right now to reject the whole Phoenix Chess variant idea, and even the Hannibal Chess and Lieutenant Chess ideas as well, and use H.G.'s setup as the main one for Frog Chess, which I still haven't rejected (at some point I could provide a preset for it, and for the original setup as a 2nd option, too).]

Fwiw, after quite a bit more thought, now I'm very inclined to reject 3 of my remaining 4 variant ideas, namely Phoenix Chess, Hannibal Chess and Lieutenant Chess, regardless of any of the setups I've considered, but I still see little wrong with my Frog Chess variant idea, either in the case of H.G.'s setup (right now the main one) or my original setup for it. See my previous (edited) post for details if interested.

[edit: Note to self (27 Nov 2017): In either case, Hannibal Chess and Lieutenant Chess with just the use of the optional setup (of compound pieces on c- and h-files) might not be so bad after all, in spite of the Centre Counter analogue! Since 'Wide Chess' idea looks promising, consider using Hannibal Chess idea again (doing Lieutenant Chess idea too might now be overdoing things - I might just say {for any Hannibal Chess non-rules enforcing preset} that players can try using Lieutenant pieces instead of Modern Elephant ones).]

Maybe something like this might work:

Thanks Greg, I'll think about your idea (not sure I could now call myself the inventor though, if I liked your setup after more study, as I still am inclined not to use either of my rejected setups as alternative presets, even, and your setup is on an 8x8, rather than 10x8, board).

I'm waiting until my schedule has a block of time clear before I try submitting Frog Chess (and later presets for it). It's been a while since I submitted anything, and I'll need to learn how to get past any possible new hurdles with the formatting of the submissions.

Note to editor(s): I have recently finished making a submission, for a page re: "Frog Chess".

Below is a diagram for my study at leisure. The elephants with '+' signs are waffles (move as wazir-alfil compound and are also known as phoenix') while the plainer looking elephants represent the lieutenant piece type from spartan chess (moves/captures as ferz-alfil compound with added ability to step sideways one square on a rank with a strictly non-capturing move). The kings would castle by moving 4 squares sideways, in this variant idea that I might call 'Wide Chess', if nothing else. I thought by going to a 12x8 board size I may yet find a variant idea that salvages an interesting use for both the waffle and lieutenant piece types, which I couldn't find a satisfying use for in 10x8 board (with chess army & more included) variant ideas earlier in this thread. For Wide Chess' 12x8 board, my tentative estimates for the piece values are P=1; W=2.35(or 2.25 approx.); N=3.06(or 3 approx.); L=2.56(or 2.5 approx.); B=3.75; R=5.5; Q=10.25 and K's fighting value=2.67 [edited valuations as of 25 Feb 2018]:

[edit: Lieutenant:]

[edit: Lieutenant's movements:]

[edit: Waffle:]

Why not switch the knights and  lieutenants as the kngiths now are to far from the action? Also in any setup waffles and lieutenants in the initial position switched should be also aloud as they are very similar. Maybe because of beeing the slightly weaker piece  the wafle should be closer to the center of the board as opening principles dictate that is should be developed first :)!

Hi Aurelian

I looked at other setups for the 'Wide Chess' variant idea I'm considering, but I wanted all pawns protected, enemy bishops not on same diagonal, and more choices of squares for both waffles and lieutenants to be developed to on the third rank that didn't step on too many (ideally any) other pieces' toes in the developmental stage of the opening phase of a game. There are a good number of other 12x8 variants on this website, a search revealed, where the knights begin on the squares where I've placed them, I had comforted myself with. There are also a number of 12x8 variants with 6 short range pieces of varying types (not counting kings), and the same major pieces per side.

One possible problem I'm a bit concerned with is that with my current idea for a castling rule, it make take many moves to ever be able to castle in such a variant as mine (or some other 12x8 ones). I'm considering possibly inventing a 'leap castling' (or could be called 'fast castling') rule instead, where an unmoved king, that's not in check, leaps once in a game to any unattacked empty square between it and an unmoved rook, followed by said rook leaping to the king's initial square. It would not matter if any squares in between were occupied or under attack. This rule idea would really speed up castling on such a wide board, but one possibly significant disadvantage would be that it might reduce an opponent's attacking chances early in the game at times.

[edit: I thought of different names I might use for the elephant piece types in this variant idea: I might also call a Waffle a Working Elephant and a Lieutenant a Lead Elephant, the first letter of these elephant names and the formal piece type names staying the same for notation purposes over-the-board, at least. : P.S.: I'm reconsidering a 10x8 setup for (10x8) Hannibal Chess and Lieutenant Chess variant ideas I rejected earlier. I might just go with Hannibal Chess, as adding Lieutenant Chess might now be overdoing it - unless I wrote in any Hannibal Chess submission that players could pretend the Modern Elephant pieces were Lieutenants, if they wished to do so when playing.]

[edit: Note to self: since I've used N=3.49(or 3.5 approx.); B=3.5 and G(Guard)=4 on an 8x8 board, rather than H.G.'s findings of N=(Lone)B=3.25 and G=3.2, my estimates that follow (for my own reference) may be off without the formulae I used being necessarily off too: For 8x8: ME(Modern Elephant)=3.125; W(Waffle)=3.125; L(Lieutenant)=3.5. For 10x8: G=3.2; N=3.38; B=3.75; ME=2.695; W=2.695; L=2.97. For 12x8: G=2.667; N=3.06; B=3.75; ME=2.35; W=2.35; L=2.56.]

Oh, yes not all pawns would be protected :(!

A variant idea occured to me today, but I'm not yet sure it's at all any good (partly since a game may be long, or the rules difficult/awkward to learn). I'm posting the diagram for the setup, and rules, for it below, for my study at leisure. A possible name for the idea is "Bloodline" (as the name 'War of the Roses' is taken already). [edit: I'm liking 'Royal Succession' better as a name now] There is no initial double step for pawns or castling. Pawns may promote to Prince (i.e. the guard figurine) or Princess (i.e the archbishop figurine). They may also promote to a Queen, unless the player who is promoting has no king on the board at the moment of promotion (i.e. this would not include if a player has just turned a prince into a king as part of a turn of his where he promotes a pawn).

There is a series of special rules, some sort of alluding to a kind of 'royal line of succession' that favours maleness:

1) A king (or else lone royal queen on the board, without the existence of a player's own king, i.e. this queen has become understood to be 'royal') must stay or get out of check if possible (stalemate of either the player's king or lone royal queen being a draw);

2) If a player's king (or lone queen, if it has become royal) is checkmated, and he has no pieces other than pawns left, he loses by 'final checkmate';

3a) Otherwise, if a player's king is mated then on his next turn he has to remove his king from the board and replaces one of his existing princes not under attack (if any available), making it into a king, and then makes a move (all feasible with Game Courier). If all of his princes are under attack, he loses by final checkmate;

3b) If this (see rule 3a) is not possible due to his having no princes on the board, then he chooses one of his queens on the board not under attack (if any) to become royal (if all his queens are under attack, then the player loses by final checkmate), and on his next turn he removes his king from the board, plus removes all of his queens other than the one he chose to be understood to be royal, and he then makes a move. If he has no queens to make the royal one, he instead chooses one of his princesses not under attack to be become the lone royal queen, replacing it with a queen, then makes a move. If all his princesses are under attack then he loses by final checkmate;

4a) If a player's lone royal queen is checkmated then on his next turn he must remove it from the board and make one of his princes not under attack (if any available) a king and then make a move (if all existing princes available are under attack then the player loses by final checkmate);

4b) If a player's lone royal queen is checkmated and he has no princes, but he does have any princesses not under attack, then on his next turn he must remove his lone royal queen, then replace a princess on the board with a queen, which will be understood to be his lone royal queen, then make his move. If his princesses are all under attack then he loses by final checkmate;

5) A three-fold repetition of position rule and a 50 move rule apply, as in chess;

6) When a checkmate is not the final one that wins the game, the opponent says/writes 'royal checkmated', else says/writes 'final checkmate'.

[edit: I'd tentatively estimate the piece values here as P=1; G(Prince)=7.11 (also K's approx. fighting value); A(Princess)=8.625 and Q=10.25. Note I'd put B=3.75, N=3.875, R=5.5 and C(Chancellor)=10.375 on such a 6x6 board.]

I've edited my previous post a bit to try to clarify some omissions to the rules of my Bloodline variant idea. [edit: I did a few minor edits to this end a bit later, too. P.S.: I now think 'Royal Succession' is a better name for this variant idea.]

Here's a diagram of a Black lone royal queen being final checkmated by White's K and 2 (clearly non-royal) queens, winning the game (don't know if this material balance is a forcible 'basic final checkmate', but I suspect so):

[edit: Note to self: it looks like it might often be too hard to end up with sufficient final checkmating material in a well-played game. Maybe I can salvage this variant idea if I ditch the royal succession rules and consider just mating a K as usual to be the game's objective (then rename, e.g. call it 'Squash Chess'; below is a 2nd setup I might use for it that uses only moderately stronger armies, perhaps, than in {6x6} Los Alamos Chess). A possible problem is that archbishops might often be traded fairly soon in a game:]

[edit: Here's a 3rd possible setup for Squash Chess that uses armies IMO about the same in value as the Los Alamos Chess ones, on 6x6 (I'd rate the colour-bound BD piece {i.e. moves as B or leaps two squares orthogonally} as worth approx. 5.47, or very close to a R in value, on this board, making for more interesting trades during games). A possible problem is that at times BD pieces might be traded quickly if they take an initial leap forward (if waffles were used instead, there could be a similar possible problem):]

Note to CVP editor(s):

I submitted 2 pages tonight, one for "Hannibal Chess" and one for "Wide Chess".

I had trouble with the brief description of Wide Chess being allowed by the database, it seems. I tried re-entering it by editing the index information for Wide Chess, which apparently was swallowed, but then no description for Wide Chess showed up yet again. If there's no easy fix for this, say by an editor, I can live without the short description for Wide Chess that I tried to give. My guess is that I may have made the description too long, if that's possible.

The description for Wide Chess does show up when trying to "edit links" from its page; I don't know why it's not being served up by the search or comment-header scripts...

Looking at some portions of the main alphabetical index to CVP, there seems to be many pages for variants that have "Missing Description" for the brief description of said games. Might there be something systemic wrong with CVP pages' index info when it comes to the brief description field for such?

No, it's nothing systemic. Many pages just don't have descriptions. This went unnoticed until I changed the code to print "Missing Description" when a description was empty.

I wonder what caused my hidden Wide Chess page submission to get tagged with "Missing Description". As Ben noted earlier, I had given a description, but it's not showing up for some reason. [edit: the Wide Chess page symbol plus "Missing Description" shows it's title spelled as "Wide chess", whereas I'm pretty sure I spelled it "Wide Chess". The page itself, when clicked on, shows the title as "Wide Chess". Strange, though I don't know if it affects things.]

I've edited my previous post.