Ratings & Comments

> Do you mean 'Danse Macabre' ...

Perhaps. It's the one that goes da DAAA da Daaaa da daaa da daaa da
dadadadadadadun dun dun, right?

In Australia we call it 'Transfer chess', or normally just 'Transfer'. 
Normally played with 5 minute time controls, no increment, and the team
loses when either player loses.  When a player is about to get mated they
will wait until their time runs out, unless their partner's opponent has
more time, in which case they will resign :)

Table talk generally includes 'knight is mate' (meaning that player can
give checkmate with a knight) or 'don't give him a knight!' (meaning if
that player's opponent gets a knight, some kind of terrible disaster will
happen), but suggestions of moves to play for your partner are frowned
upon.

Questions like 'Should I sac my queen for a pawn?' are also acceptable.

Peter Aronson wrote:
'(Zillions is hardly the only tool suitable for this sort of thing, of
course, but it is the one that usually comes to hand for me. Occasionally I
worry about the effect this has on my game designing, since if the only
tool you have is a hammer, everthing starts to look like a nail. However,
the essay Zillions of Games: threat or menace, will have to wait for
another day.)'

I had never thought of this effect, perhaps because I neither design games
nor write ZRFs (I entirely lack creativity).  I take this to mean that
ZoG-wise game designers will avoid designing games using concepts that
cannot be effectively implemented in Zillions-of-Games, thereby limiting
their own creativity.

At the same time, ZoG has been considered a tremendous boon to board game
variantists of all stripes, allowing them to play and test their
more-or-less obscure discoveries and creations without the need to actually
find and interact with other people.

So, the starter questions are, 'Does ZoG limit creativity?', 'If it does,
does it matter?'  What do you think?

I think that the silly summary is actually longer than a serious one would
be; but it's lots of fun and reasonably accurate. Definitely a useful thing
for those who don't speak the language.

As for the game, it seems a worthy endeavour, but needs to be clever or
else it will never.

'Mostly self-capture with the occasional threat'.

Idea 1. There is no problem. Sacrifice a few Pawns to build up an attack;
give checkmate, and win. You merely weren't sufficiently enterprising in
your play. (This idea could very well be false, but deserves to be
mentioned.)

Idea 2. Make self-capture less appealing than other-capture. Pieces go in
hand but are demoted? Something might work.

The only tool I usually use is the chessboard in my head, which usually
limits my games to things that I can playtest blindfold.

Given a chessboard and a few coins and a pencil and paper, one can do a
wider range of games than can be done using just the mental board; but then
I wonder if that distracts one from the 'pure thought' which proves so
productive.

I would have to say that whatever works well for you is best.

I kind of like the current version, and will play with it further.  That
is:

- Sacrifice every other turn

- Knights replaced by Halfling Nightriders

- Only Baronets (Royal WFcN) can capture own pieces

- Pawns are quick Pawns and no en passant

I'll try to find some of my usual suspects to playtest with via e-mail, and
see how it works.

OK, who of you asked for the wrong furniture?

PS: If you don't know what I'm talking about, then it's not you.

I have an idea for self-captured pieces: a self-captured piece cannot be
dropped to a square which is threatened by a friendly piece. This should
alleviate the use of self-captured pieces to checkmate or block checks.