Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

I've added edits to my last post in this thread, mentioning credit to Aurelian for a point, plus mentioning new diagrams (& estimated values) given with FN pieces involved, for in my 12x10 and 10x10 variant ideas [edit: I've since rejected any 10x10 version of WAD Chess I've come up with, regardless], that are added with edits to another relatively recent previous post (4 days ago) in this thread. [edit: after looking at the near-exact values for the WADs, Bs, Ns and FNs for both variant ideas possible setups, I've concluded these pieces from the point of view of comparing the highest to lowest will be considerably closer in value in the case if Ns are used rather than FNs for 10x10 WAD Chess, but for 12x10 Wide Nightrider Chess, if Ns are used instead of FNs then the range from highest to lowest piece is very slightly larger than if FNs are used instead of Ns, so using FNs for this particular 12x10 variant idea is slightly preferable from this point of view alone.]

[edit: SOHO Chess variant idea of mine to study; K castles by moving 3 squares sideways (otherwise as in FIDE) - the name comes from its being influenced by Shako, Omega Chess, Hannibal Chess and Opulent Chess, each to varying degrees:]

I'd estimate the piece vales for this 10x10 idea (at least in the endgame) as: P=1; C=2.75; N=3; B=3.5; FAD=CH=WZ=3.75; R=5.5; Q=R+B+P=10; K's fighting value=2.5 approx. [edit: I think I'll reject this variant idea, if only due to the setup, as the rook's pawns may be too tender if both sides castle on the same side, if cannon(s) and B(s) still hit said pawns]

[edit2: Backup setup for SOHO Chess - maybe variant idea just fine with this setup:]

[edit: Parity Chess variant idea of mine to study; officially K castles by moving 4 squares sideways (otherwise as in FIDE), though players by agreement can use other castling rules - the name comes the fact that 2/3 of the pieces are close in value by my estimations, aside from pawns; the setup has a lot of resemblence to the one for the historic variant Courier-Spiel, IMO:]

I'd estimate the values for this 12x8 idea as: P=1; N=3.06(or 3 approx.); B=3.75; FAD=CH=3.86(or 3.75 approx.); R=5.5; Q=R+B+P=10.25; K's fighting value=2.67. [edit: I think I'll reject this variant idea if only due to the setup, as the c- and j-pawns may prove tender enough as to restrict the ways the players can deploy their pawns and pieces. edit2: this 'defect' doesn't seem so terrible, in hindsight (which also suggests Wide Chess-style castling rules would seem to be a better way to go).]

[edit: "Chess 1210" variant idea of mine for study; rules same as for Parity Chess, except rules for pawn movement as in Omega Chess - this spinoff variant has the benefit that bishops might well be slightly easier to develop than might often be the case in Parity (there a pawn a B defends in the setup can soon be hit by an opponent's unmoved B), though 1210 has a lower pieces to empty cells ratio in the setup (plus also less parity among a number of the piece types' values, on 12x10), and pawns take slightly longer to reach the last rank:]

I'd estimate the values for this 12x10 idea as P=1; N=2.83(or 2.75 approx.); FAD=CH=3.48(or 3.5 approx.); B=3.75; R=5.5; Q=R+B+P=10.25; K's fighting value=2.13(or 2.1 approx.). [edit: I think I'll reject this 12x10 variant idea, as knights a bit weak on 12x10, plus setup may still not be ideal, and it's similar to 12x8 Parity Chess but with more disadvantages]

[edit: Wide SOHO Chess variant idea of mine to study; no castling allowed:]

I'd estimate the values for this 12x10 idea (at least in the endgame) as: P=1; C=2.75; N=2.83(or 2.75 approx.); FAD=CH=3.48(or 3.5 approx.); WZ=3.56(or 3.5 approx.); B=3.75; R=5.5; A=B+N+P=7.58(or 7.5 approx.); M=R+N+P=9.33(or 9.25 approx.); Q=R+B+P=10.25; K's fighting value=2.13(or 2.1 approx.). [edit: I think I'll reject this 12x10 variant idea, as lots of pieces per army (36), castling impossible, R placement in setup not attractive, and Ns a bit weak on 12x10]

Note that for all 4 of these variant ideas, the Champion piece type (also known as a WAD) can force mate with the assistance of just the king vs. a lone K, thanks to the given variants' board sizes. Also for all these variant ideas, IMHO a B or C is worth at least a CH, FAD or WZ before the endgame phase, with a C being worth a B before said phase.

[edit3: Backup Wide SOHO Chess setup - variant idea seems not too bad with this; can use Capablanca Chess-style castling rules:]

Champion:

FAD:

Wizard:

Cannon:

Archbishop:

Marshall:

for this 12x10 board (has the drawback, if it is one, that WAD+K cannot always force mate vs. lone K on a 12x10 board)

Forcing mate on 12x10 is still no problem for WAD+K. (Maximally 47 moves. With WD+K it would take 67 moves.)

Thanks for that clarification on my post, H.G.

I've gone back and added four diagrams to my second last post in this thread, to post the setups for 4 new variant ideas of mine, for me to study at leisure (tentatively these are called "SOHO Chess" (10x10), "Parity Chess" (12x8), "Chess 1210" (12x10) and "Wide SOHO Chess" (12x10)) - all share a number of the same piece types. [edit: I've since rejected all these 4 variant ideas, for one reason or another, as noted in the relevant post further below]

@ H.G.:

Would you happen to know the maximum number of moves to force mate with WAD+K vs. lone K on a 10x10 board?

Also, would you happen to have a view on the comparitive values of a WAD and a B on a 10x8 board? I ask this last question since I'm trying to revive a 10x8 variant idea of mine where fast trades of a B for a WAD might occur right from the setup, and I'm hoping that it might be okay in your view for the side parting with a WAD to allow this. My own primitive formula for estimating their difference in value on 10x8 indicates such a trade is not so good for the side with the WAD (by about half a pawn), but it could be nice to see a differing view on this, if you have one.

WAD + K vs K takes 39 moves at most, on 10x10.

On 10x8 a Bishop is relatively valuable; the Capablanca values have R=500, B=350/400 (depending on whether it is part of a pair), N=300. Normally leapers with 12 targets, such as WAD, are worth about as much as a Rook there.

Thanks H.G.

After some study and reflection, I've rejected all but one of my relatively recent variant ideas that included the champion piece type (plus some old variant ideas I previously rejected, and still do). I'm now on the verge of submitting my 12x10 Wide Nightrider Chess variant idea, which includes the champion as a type.

{edit: Note to CVP editor(s): I've now submitted my Wide Nightrider Chess idea.]

I've had a 12x8 variant idea tonight, which I may dub 'Champagne Chess' if I eventually submit it, after I study the setup diagram at leisure. The Dragon pieces are after the 'Dragon' piece type mentioned in Piececlopedia, i.e. a Knight-Pawn compound piece. The piece would work as stated in the Piecelodepia article on it, except in this variant advancing two-steps initially is entirely ruled out during play of a game, as in the setup the piece begins on the first rank. Castling would be like in chess, except the king steps 4 squares sideways to do so (official rules, but by agreement the players might experiment with another castling rule of some sort). The Elephants depicted are Ferfils, i.e. they can also move like Ferz'. Notice that the pawns are all protected in the setup:

Dragon

I'd tentatively estimate the piece values (on the game's 12x8 board) as follows: P=1; E=2.34(or 2.25 approx.); N=3.06(or 3 approx.); B=3.75; D=4.58(or 4.5 approx.); R=5.5; Q=R+B+P=10.25; Ks fighting value=2.67.

{edit: Backup setup for Champagne Chess variant idea - seems okay if Wide Chess-style castling rules used, at least:]

You are quite productive Kevin, that is quite neat :)!

Thanks Aurelian. This variant idea might end up being my last gasp (for at least a while) at coming up with the sort of thing that might meet most or all of my own stringent personal criteria for what may one day prove to be a candidate for a 'Next Chess' for many.

I originally tried 'Beast Chess' as a name, but that was taken elsewhere on the internet, as was a secondary choice ('Fairyland Chess'), then I wanted a name that suggested this was a wide game, without using the word 'wide' again. "Coast2Coast' and 'Sea2Sea' have been used for other things, too, and 'Rink' or "Prairie' (always followed by 'Chess') seemed just wrong. I liked 'Champaign Chess' more, but that again was already taken, on the internet. Then the idea of slightly 'misspelling' the first word of this occured to me (sort of like the inventor of Renn Chess did for his variant), and the final(!?) name choice seemed cool to me.

Looking just now, the current setup for Champagne Chess possibly has a defect that's at least a minor one, in that by developing a bishop to the square just in front of a king, one or both sides can put pressure on the enemy king's rook pawn on the second rank, if their queen is still on its original square. Defending by developing the king's knight towards the centre on the third rank is not quite reassuring enough to me, as the enemy's other bishop might be able to quickly take that knight from its original square. The only satisfactory response to a queen-bishop battery as described may be to push one's king's rook's pawn one square forward, so as to prepare eventual possible kingside castling, which seems a bit annoying from this inventor's point of view, if it's to always be the one and only routine response.

[edit: 16 April 2018: even after an l-pawn moves forward one square, an opponent could send his B to where the l-pawn was, after trading off a defending N (if the only defender aside from the R), which just might prove a major bother in a not infrequent number of cases perhaps, as not castling kingside might prove unpalatable - a serious defect for this variant idea enough I'm now inclined to reject it]

To be fair, a bishop seems modestly deployed otherwise when developed to the second rank just in front of the king [edit: all this assumes the opening phase has not been one where the j-pawn has been pushed two squares somehow by the otherwise l-pawn-defending side, though this might not happen very frequently in a well played opening].

[edit2: 27 Oct 2018: I've gone back and added a backup setup to my original post on my Champagne Chess variant idea, which may now be okay as a result, at least if Wide Chess-style castling rules are used, as stated there.]

Bumping up this thread to repost a diagram of a (earlier rejected) possible setup for the old (10x8) 'WAD Chess' variant idea of mine to re-study at my leisure (note that castling is as in Capablanca Chess [K moves 3 squares sideways in the process], and that Dr. Muller has related that WAD+K can force mate vs. lone K on a 10x8 board); after having issues with other possible setups I tried, I borrowed Wildebeest Chess' idea of starting all bishops on the same side of the board, even though that variant's board has an odd number of files so as to justify the idea more. For a 10x8 board I tentatively put P=1; N=3.38; B=3.75; WAD(or Champion)=4.29; R=5.5; Q=R+B+P=10.25 and K's fighting value=3.2; also note that a WAD piece comes close to the average value for all non-pawn pieces in a chess army, IMHO, possibly in itself making WAD Chess a bit more of an interesting extension of chess. Note that before the endgame, I'd hazard to rate a B at least as valuable as a WAD on average, on a 10x8 board (it seems true for 10x10 with such armies per side, at least, as the commercial webpage for Omega Chess strategy suggests to me) [edit: after some study, the diagrammed setup still seems too ugly, at least, to me. That's on top of the B/c1 beaming towards the P/i7 plus the square h6, for example]:

WAD (Champion):

As noted in another thread, I've just finished making a (as yet unofficial) preset for 'Waffle Chess' (new name for my original 10x8 Phoenix Chess variant idea - that name has since been taken for a variant submission in 2018 by someone else), in case I decide to submit it as a finished variant eventually. The setup would be as in my 2017-11-13 post in this thread, only using Wide Chess style castling rules in an effort to overcome possible difficulties developing pieces at all smoothly (I noted the new castling rules idea when editing that old post recently). Not yet sure this revised variant idea is attractive/feasible enough IMO, though. I've also made edits to old posts in this thread about 7 other old variant ideas I previously rejected - I'm still checking if any of these are attractive/feasible enough IMO, either.

[edit: 19-11-2018: Here's a diagram for a variant idea I'm looking at at my leisure, perhaps to be called 'Compound Chess' if I submit it. The pawns are standard sergeants (i.e. can make initial 2-step on same file as start on & can't capture en passant), which can promote to any piece in the setup except K. Rotated rook figurines represent Rook Alfil (RA) compound pieces (a more normal figurine unavailable in Alfarie: Many piece set), queen-like figurines are QAD compounds, & NP piece type (can, in pawn-like fashion, capture a sergeant en passant) is otherwise known as dragon (with this game's setup, it can never make a 2-step like pawn). Castling (with K & either RA) would be like in Capablanca Chess (there with Ks & Rs):]

Sergeant

Dragon

My tentative piece value estimates (for on this game's 10x8 board) would be: S=1.54(or 1.5 approx.); NP=5.07(or 5 approx.); BD=5.35(or 5.25 approx.); RA=7.1(or 7 approx.); NGU=7.58(or 7.5 approx.); QAD=12.45(or 12.5 approx.) and Ks fighting value=3.2. Note that e.g. just 3 sergeant pawns are worth about a NP or BD, which is why sergeants are to go with the chosen armies, i.e. to make trading a low number of them for a piece feasible at times, sort of as in chess. Also, all the pieces and pawns in the setup are arguably compound pieces (even a K, which can move like a ferz or wazir).

I had an idea for a chess variant the other day, and I'll leave it here for now for study at my leisure. I'm not at all sure yet the idea is worth saving; this variant idea might be called 'Officer Chess', and would have rules like for FIDE chess, except the pawns could promote on the last rank to any type in the setup except a king:

[edit: 22-Nov-2019: {edit: may be too harsh on this idea here.} Currently I don't much like the very asymmetric back ranks, and long rectangular board, alone.]

Why not? The back rank pieces are neat.

But your games do give me a feeling of more of the same.

Hi Aurelian

The back rank pieces are the same compound pieces I used for Sac Chess, plus a couple more compounds that I figure are both in between a queen and an amazon in value, on 8x10. However, I used all the compound pieces only once each, for this (Officer Chess) variant idea. The main issue I have is that the setup (the back ranks at least) is arguably rather ugly, but I had a reason to put just about every piece on those ranks where they are. Earlier I had tried to use each compound piece twice, on a 12x10 board, but the setup always had lots of pieces menacing towards the opponent's pawns right from the setup. With Officer Chess, that just happens with the edge pawns, though even that is worrying, if I want kingside castling to seem safe to the players much of the time.

For a while now I've run out of fresh ideas. One thing is, I don't have the technical skills (nor the burning desire to get them, if hard study required), say simply to be able to make a game with a random starting setup (e.g. on the back rank), nor how to make brouhaha offboard squares, for example (not that I have any clue on what new game I might ever use them for). Being able to have rules-enforcing presets for games would be good, as I suspect such games get played a lot more. However, again it's a matter of skill and not much desire to get it (there's also that I'd hate for a bug to come up if people played such a game of mine, if I wrote the preset, whether or not I was still coming to CVP website at such a time). Otherwise, I'd like it if Hannibal Chess and Frog Chess had rules-enforcing presets, for example. Meanwhile, more complex Ultima-style or wargame-style CVs are beyond my design imaginings right now, nor would I know how to upload any special graphics if necessary.

On a seperate note, I've sent you 6 personal GC invitations, if you haven't noticed yet, and care to accept any.

Too many super-pieces, too few minors, for my taste. IMO, if a chess variant contains an Amazon, it already sucks.

I just see a few useless pieces. 1 rook, bishop, and knight (the standard ones) are superfluous. You already have one of them and then a king compound of the same piece. And if you remove the amazon you can get rid of four and it may make it easier to slim the game down evenly (even if I do like the piece and would love to see it in there somehow if it can be done without resorting to a weird board shape). 

 

But other than that it seems fine. I'd just simplify it that little bit and probably put the king in the back to allow for some castling. Then it's a little more like regular chess, albeit with a compound of every piece. 

Edit: you can also replace the pieces. Alfils, a man, etc. Assuming you want the same piece amount and don't want to mess with that much.

Thanks for the replies guys, however critical. The theme I had in mind with this Officer Chess variant idea is basically the same as what I had with Sac Chess, namely the standard chess pieces plus the classic compound piece(s) (i.e. crowned or knighted versions of the standard chess pieces). For Officer Chess I added in two more compounds, each triple compound pieces, to try to logically complete the classic bunch of crowned and knighted compounds (plus standard chess pieces).

As I wrote earlier, I originally wished to have two each of all the compounds (not counting the queen by itself), but that didn't work out on 12x10. It could work out on 12x12, but as a rule I don't think that board size would be remotely attractive except when played online rather than on a physical board. Not only that, but on 12x12 the Ns have rather a short reach, and somehow I'd rather have more camel/wizard type pieces, as in Gross Chess, which is a fine game (for online at the least, indisputably in my eyes). Also, a game played of a 12x12 version of Officer Chess might last way too many moves on average if played well enough, I fear, if armies of 36 units each are used. Note that castling is possible, along the second rank, for the (8x10) Officer Chess idea I'm still contemplating, though my doubts are now increased. Substantially modifying it would take more thought and work though, and it would become a different variant idea altogether.

With Officer Chess I had some hope of doing something fairly quick and dirty, else just forget it (or modify after a taking a break). Note that the popular (10x10) Sac Chess has not one but two amazons per army. I thank H.G. again for putting together a software package long ago that included that variant, though perhaps he has had a change of heart since regarding the merits of that game. Fergus has favorited it on this CVP website, which I consider a considerable endorsement, especially as Fergus also has the customary inclination to avoid including amazons in any variant as a rule (at least such a powerful piece type is on a considerably large board, in the case of Sac Chess). Aurelian's support for the (8x10) Officer Chess is encouraging, if I have any lingering doubts about just junking the idea, which is basically Sac Chess on a somewhat smaller board (perhaps allowing for shorter games on average, which is a plus). I'm not afraid to use a lot of super-pieces, as in chess major piece middlegames and endgames are often very exciting, for both players and spectators - and may lead to more decisive games.

Kevin if you want to play against me (Officer Chess)  Invite me.  I'd be glad to run prototypes (tests).

 

 

Thanks for the offer, wdtr2. I'll try to get around to making an unofficial preset for my (8x10) Officer Chess idea when I'm a bit less tired and also have more time.

Here's another version of my (10x8) Officer Chess variant idea, which I may have rejected too fast - I'll study it at my leisure. It might be called (12x12) 'Brawl Chess', and again is a kind of extention of my popular (10x10) Sac Chess variant. Castling would be done on a player's second rank with either unmoved rook, with the unmoved king going 3 squares sideways. Pawns would move as in Omega Chess, i.e. initial double or triple step allowed (as are en passant capture possibilities). Pawns would promote on the last rank, to any piece type in the setup (except for king):

[edit: 22-Nov-2019 {edit: may be too harsh on this CV idea here}: Currently I don't like this idea much, as I think games might take way too many moves on average, if well played, and in any case it might take awhile in a game before the two sides begin to really come to grips in earnest. edit2: besides the 2 diagrammed ideas shown here, and in my previous post in this thread, I have 12 other variant ideas I'm still looking at now & then - these I mentioned in an edit to a posted comment about the Chess Variant Inventors page.]

[edit: 23-Dec-2020: J-L Cazaux has since invented a 12x10 CV {Very Heavy Chess} that uses the same piece types as in the above CV idea]

Long ago I asked H.G. about the ending of K + 2HW vs. K, HW being Horse-Wazir compound. His intuition was that the HWs should be able to force mate (say on 8x8).

Perhaps someone with an engine or database that can include lame leapers (such as the Horse [aka Mao]) might be able to tell if the following position that I came up with has a shorter solution than mate in 4 for White, which I doubt. Another point is that it would seem once the lone king is cornered, the win shouldn't take long, as a rule, for this type of ending:

https://www.chessvariants.com/piececlopedia.dir/mao.html

White to play and mate; one solution I have is:

1.HWd5-c3 check kb1-a1

(if 1...kb1-c1 2.HWe3-e3 mate)

2.HWe3-c2 check ka1-b1 3.HWc2-b2 check kb1-c1

(if 3...kb1-a1 4.HWb2-a2 mate)

4.HWc3-e2 mate.