Kevin Pacey wrote on Sat, Mar 10, 2018 05:27 AM UTC:
Thanks for the suggestions and/or support so far guys. I'm a little tired tonight so I'll be taking even more time thinking these variant ideas over as a result.
I assume the suggestions are for the 12x10 version of Wide Nightrider Chess. I had my heart set on being a purist as far as keeping the 6 FIDE piece types intact, plus adding in two rather orthodox fairy chess types, and the champion and nightrider types appealed to me the most, partly because they move symmetrically and partly because they are close in value to minor piece or rook values repectively, even on this size board. I also have a bit of a problem with adding a ferz or wazir (even if move-only) component to a knight, because in my own ways of estimating their values, such a compound piece would be worth more than 4 pawns even on this size board. If H.G. were to differ on that estimate, I could at least quote his view however. In any case, another idea is to have a mutator variant(s) on Game Courier where either of these compounds is used instead of knights. As an aside, I find 12x10 more of a possible acceptable size for a physical board, if ever made, as 12x12 would be rather long for a coffeetable without possibly reducing the scale of the pieces and squares even more significantly than, e.g. 10x10. Coffeetables and tournament hall tables are normally rectangular, you see.
Some comments on my 10x10 version of WAD Chess: I like that WAD+K can mate lone K unlike for Omega Chess's strange board, which physically needs smaller scale squares (if not pieces) due to the extended length and width of the board compared to a nice clean 10x10 board, so in that sense too I hope less is more. I moved to 10x10 for WAD chess since the 10x8 version had the bishops hitting the edge pawns in that setup, and perhaps often leading to fast bishop trades. It's not clear to me that on 10x10 (or even 10x8) that a B is really worth less than a WAD though, at least before the endgame. I saw on a write-up for Omega Chess's piece values (on it's commercial site!?) doubt about even trading a B for a WAD being okay before the endgame, I think. I didn't like the idea of using a setup similar to Omega Chess for 10x10 WAD Chess (though I added a diagram for it in an edit to a much earlier post, as a backup setup). Even with the wizards and their extra corner squares added, I don't like Omega chess' castling rules leaving the king far from an edge pawn with this game's setup - but also normally I kind of like rooks being in the corners to help that, and for tradition's sake, too.
My preferred 10x10 WAD Chess setup has the disadvantage (besides the slight clash, perhaps, for ideal squares to develop minor pieces to on the 3rd rank) that if a knight is developed towards the centre, and the WAD on the same side leaps forward, they might be threatened with a pawn fork, though that takes longer to happen than on 10x8. There is also that castling would take longer than in Omega Chess' setup. However there's one more thing I don't like about that game's setup, and that's that edge pawns (if unmoved) may be vulnerable to a hit at least, before or after castling, unless their close WAD piece stays close, sadly on the rim or corner that is.
Lots of pros and cons for me to weigh here about the setups, and about suggestions thus far. :)
Thanks for the suggestions and/or support so far guys. I'm a little tired tonight so I'll be taking even more time thinking these variant ideas over as a result.
I assume the suggestions are for the 12x10 version of Wide Nightrider Chess. I had my heart set on being a purist as far as keeping the 6 FIDE piece types intact, plus adding in two rather orthodox fairy chess types, and the champion and nightrider types appealed to me the most, partly because they move symmetrically and partly because they are close in value to minor piece or rook values repectively, even on this size board. I also have a bit of a problem with adding a ferz or wazir (even if move-only) component to a knight, because in my own ways of estimating their values, such a compound piece would be worth more than 4 pawns even on this size board. If H.G. were to differ on that estimate, I could at least quote his view however. In any case, another idea is to have a mutator variant(s) on Game Courier where either of these compounds is used instead of knights. As an aside, I find 12x10 more of a possible acceptable size for a physical board, if ever made, as 12x12 would be rather long for a coffeetable without possibly reducing the scale of the pieces and squares even more significantly than, e.g. 10x10. Coffeetables and tournament hall tables are normally rectangular, you see.
Some comments on my 10x10 version of WAD Chess: I like that WAD+K can mate lone K unlike for Omega Chess's strange board, which physically needs smaller scale squares (if not pieces) due to the extended length and width of the board compared to a nice clean 10x10 board, so in that sense too I hope less is more. I moved to 10x10 for WAD chess since the 10x8 version had the bishops hitting the edge pawns in that setup, and perhaps often leading to fast bishop trades. It's not clear to me that on 10x10 (or even 10x8) that a B is really worth less than a WAD though, at least before the endgame. I saw on a write-up for Omega Chess's piece values (on it's commercial site!?) doubt about even trading a B for a WAD being okay before the endgame, I think. I didn't like the idea of using a setup similar to Omega Chess for 10x10 WAD Chess (though I added a diagram for it in an edit to a much earlier post, as a backup setup). Even with the wizards and their extra corner squares added, I don't like Omega chess' castling rules leaving the king far from an edge pawn with this game's setup - but also normally I kind of like rooks being in the corners to help that, and for tradition's sake, too.
My preferred 10x10 WAD Chess setup has the disadvantage (besides the slight clash, perhaps, for ideal squares to develop minor pieces to on the 3rd rank) that if a knight is developed towards the centre, and the WAD on the same side leaps forward, they might be threatened with a pawn fork, though that takes longer to happen than on 10x8. There is also that castling would take longer than in Omega Chess' setup. However there's one more thing I don't like about that game's setup, and that's that edge pawns (if unmoved) may be vulnerable to a hit at least, before or after castling, unless their close WAD piece stays close, sadly on the rim or corner that is.
Lots of pros and cons for me to weigh here about the setups, and about suggestions thus far. :)