Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

If I may join and play with you on this interesting discussion, to my taste:

• I agree with HG that it was too much strong pieces in the array (Amazon, RFN, BWN).

• I don't like too much compound pieces like FD and WA, nice pattern but not natural (yes, this is subjective, but I feel it like this). I do prefer much FA (Elephant) and WD (War Machine) because I see a consistency in their move.

• I don't like that singleton pieces (here Crowned R and Crowned B) are on sides where as some duo pieces are more in the center (on f,g,j,k). (Another subjective opinion).

• I would suggest to use a pair of FA, a pair of WD. 4 spaces would remain. Have you considered to use a pair of Cannons and a pair of Vao? (Instead of the 2xFD, 1 RK, 1 BK).

Capablanca Chess and Carrera Chess have BN and RN singletons in the wings. For a board this wide I think it can even be nice to spread out the 'power-pieces' a bit. I don't have any clear preference myself; I just put RF and BW where I did because that was where Kevin had put the Elephants that I replaced. But I don't see why this would beg for 'improvement'. If symmetry would be the holy grail, I would sooner take two BW in the wings than move singleton BW and RF to the center. (BW on 16x8 could be significantly stronger than Rook anyway, because it will in general attack the opponent in two places, rather than one.)

One point to consider is that there are already so many variants using Elephants, Cannons, and Vaos (to not even mention Archbishops and Chancellors). I experience it as very refreshing to also see some other pieces now and then. The WA, FD, BW and RF are only rarely encountered, outside shogi variants.

And as to 'unnatural moves': if a chessplayer would consider anything unnatural, it will be the Cannon and the Vao. The presence of those divergent hoppers really upsets everything you thought to know about tactics. And I don't think the FD is unnatural at all: it is just the conjugate of a King (i.e. the 45-degree rotated version moving on the sub-grid of one shade). And King moves are very natural. The WA is indeed a different matter; you will have to learn how to manouevre with it, just like novice chess players have to learn to manouevre with a Knight. But that seems a small matter compared to mastering the use of Cannons and such.

I don't see much fun in reducing every chess variant to a version of Shako or Pemba on a differently shaped board.

With 16x8 Officer-Spiel (or 8x10 Officer Chess), I used every traditional compound piece (but only once per army) plus the other 8 pieces from FIDE chess, much as e.g. 12x10 Very Heavy Chess uses them.

While my first instinct is to reject Officer-Spiel as having too many powerful pieces (I've since added an alternative setup I prefer, with an edit to that post), maybe I'm being too fussy. That's since 14x8 Alekhine Chess uses quite similar great piece power, without even the ability for a player to castle quickly - yet that CV proved popular as far as I know, at least initially (pandering mainly to many lower rated players, perhaps - though you do what you've got to do ;)).

With 16x8 Constable-Spiel (or 8x10 Constabulary Chess), it was a similar story - I used 2 of each of 4 piece types (that are the logical compounds of A,D,F and W, in ways that make them all approximately worth a Kt; they also each only move within a radius of 2 cells). Then I combined those 8 pieces with the 8 pieces of the FIDE chess army. I liked sticking to the theme, and still don't much mind the FA type at all (much as I don't dismiss Amazons automatically as invention idea setup choices - another thing each variantist has his own personal preference about, it seems).

https://www.chessvariants.com/rules/very-heavy-chess

Bah, I was (sadly) fearing to get such an answer. I take your last sentence straight in my face, thank you. Are you especially angry today?

Hi J-L: If you mean my answer, no, not angry at all - though I did just get up from a nap and may not yet be as tactful as I should be.

@Kevin: no, not yours.

You expressed an opinion. H.G. expressed a different opinion, complete with the logic behind it. I don't see anything objectionable here, except possibly the last sentence, and even there I think you are being too sensitive.

You often express strong opinions - sometimes quite forcefully, especially regarding the names of pieces. You also sometimes respond poorly to alternate opinions.

Bah, I was (sadly) fearing to get such an answer. I take your last sentence straight in my face, thank you. Are you especially angry today?

Not angry at all. But if you suspected this answer could come, there must be some truth in it, right? And don't get me wrong, Shako and Pemba are great games. I count them in the top 10%-tier of all chess variants, because of the good spectrum of piece values and interesting pieces. But that doesn't mean one should make infinite numbers of variations on them, using the same set of pieces over and over again, with minimal variation. Especially since there are already many other variants that use Elephant, Cannon and Vao. At some point that gets boring, and a clone of a great original is still just a clone.

Just for fun

Hi Daniel. I think I'd call this 'Bureau-Spiel, but rearrange the back ranks a bit in the setup.

I don't see a difference. Is that the right image?

@ Daniel.

The image I just gave is the same as your suggestion a month ago in this thread - I tried to quote it but somehow only got the diagram part.

I hadn't actually thought of an exact re-arrangement of the back ranks to my liking, but at least the way some of the diagonal-capable pieces of each army were pointing may not have been ideal possibly (don't know what new setup to suggest/try for sure yet, unless I think of some things that are specific).

I recall your caption for the diagram said 'Just for fun', but in the past I've dreamt up some pretty wide CV invention ideas with 8 ranks myself.

edit: @ Myself (or anyone curious): A list of the dates and places on CVP site that I've left key comments/diagrams about (28) CV invention ideas of mine, that I might make preset(s) for at some point if I stop rejecting all the CV ideas:

To the 'Diagram Testing Thread': 2023-03-06, 2023-02-01, 2023-01-31, 2023-01-17, 2020-12-31,2020-12-16, 2020-12-15, 2019-02-16

To the 'Parity Chess' preset page: 2018-11-30

To the 'Frog Chess' rules page: 2017-11-25

To the 'Courier-Spiel' rules page: 2019-09-29

Finally, to the 'Amazon Grand Chess' rules page: 2019-12-14

edit2: 2023-12-29: I now have (28) preliminary Settings Files made for all these CV ideas, which can act as presets, especially for members able to recognize fairly common fairy piece figurines, as used on CVP site's Game Courier. One way these Settings Files of mine can be found is on my Personal Information page on CVP (just explore the list, for ones that seem interesting).

I hadn't actually thought of an exact re-arrangement of the back ranks to my liking, but at least the way some of the diagonal-capable pieces of each army were pointing may not have been ideal possibly (don't know what new setup to suggest/try for sure yet, unless I think of some things that are specific).

I recall your caption for the diagram said 'Just for fun', but in the past I've dreamt up some pretty wide CV invention ideas with 8 ranks myself.

If you come up with a setup that's satisfactory I'd be interested in playing it.

Below is a diagram of my first attempt to improve the setup of what I called (24x8) Bureau-Spiel; Fast Castling rules like used for my already published Wide Chess CV, and FIDE pawn rules - we can study it at our leisure:

As of today I've made preliminary Settings Files for my backlog of 28 CV ideas - they can already serve as (unofficial) presets for anyone who visits my CVP Personal Information Page, to look up the link for my Settings Files (then they are free straight away to explore the whole list of mine).

Here's a list of the names of the (28) CV ideas, to give possible insight:

24x8: (1) Bureau-Spiel

20x8: (1) Hurly-Burly Chess

16x8: (3) Officer-Spiel; Constable-Spiel; Accelerated Constable-Spiel

14x8: (1) Wide-Spiel

12x12: (1) Brawl Chess

12x8: (10) Accelerated Courier-Spiel; Capa-Spiel; Centaur-Spiel; Janus-Spiel; Hurly-Burly-Spiel; Lancer-Spiel; Horse-Wazir-Spiel; Kirin-Spiel; Warmachinewazir-Spiel; Waffle-Spiel

10x10: (2) Grandiose Chess; Hybrid Decimal Chess

10x8: (6) Centaur Princess Chess; Fibnif Lancers Chess; Horse-Wazir Chess; Kirin Chess; Hybrid Chess; Warmachinewazir Chess

8x10: (3) Officer Chess; Constabulary Chess; Accelerated Constabulary Chess.

Here's a direct link to my Settings Files:

https://www.chessvariants.com/play/pbm/settings.php?author=panther

@ Daniel

I still find this 24x8 invention idea (essentially yours, the setup of which I modified and called Bureau-Spiel) looking plausible, so I finally made a preset and sent you a personal invitation to play-test it, if you still are interested.

Kevin

Testing - if this works maybe Fergus or another editor can tell me if It's allowed in a 'Pieces' section of a Rules Page, possibly in future, if they can read my comment here from the original state I had it in before submitting it:

Amazon — Can move like a Queen or Knight.

Ship — Can move like a Rook, Knight, or Ferz. Also known as Heroine.

Freemason — Can move like a Bishop, Knight, or Wazir. Also known as Templar or Popess.

Chancellor — Can move like a Rook or Knight. Also commonly called Marshall.

Archbishop — Can move like a Bishop or Knight. Also commonly called Cardinal.

Sailor — Can move like a Rook or step one square diagonally like a Ferz. Known in Shogi as Dragon King.

Missionary — Can move like a Bishop or step one square orthogonally like a Wazir. Known in Shogi as Dragon Horse.

Judge — Can step one square in any direction like a non-royal King or leap like a Knight. More commonly known as Centaur.

if this works maybe Fergus or another editor can tell me if It's allowed in a 'Pieces' section of a Rules Page

Why wouldn't it be allowed?

if they can read my comment here from the original state I had it in before submitting it

Earlier versions of comments are not saved as revisions, but we can look at the source code of your comment if that is what you mean. The main change I would recommend is to use relative URLs.

I copied and pasted from a settings file - would save time doing it that way again.

Note that the PTA also has a button for creating a HTML verbal piece description that you only have to copy-paste into the Pieces section, in order to save time when creating entirely new variants. For regular pieces this should work quite well.