Single Comment

Grotesque Chess. A variant of Capablanca's Chess with no unprotected Pawns. (10x8, Cells: 80) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]

🕸💡📝Fergus Duniho wrote on Thu, Sep 23, 2004 05:48 PM UTC:

Charles Gilman writes: <BLOCKQUOTE> This arrangement of simple pieces opens a whole new debate. RB-N--N-BR alone protects all but the d and g Pawns. Therefore any arrangement of the four compound pieces will protect all Pawns as only one lacks the required diagonal move. </BLOCKQUOTE> You're right about that. I put the Knights so close to the center, because I knew I could protect all the Pawns by keeping pairs of diagonal moving pieces together. If I had put Knights in the same positions as Aberg had, not all Pawns would have been protected. I expect my reason for putting the Knights so close to the center blinded me to the fact that I could have then arranged the other pieces at will. <BLOCKQUOTE> What are the relative merits of the 12 distinct arrangements (or even just the 6 with a centralised King)? </BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, I would favor keeping the King centralized. The six distinct arrangements you refer to are actually six sets of mathematically equivalent pairs. These are <PRE> RBGNKQNEBR and RBENQKNGBR RBENKQNGBR and RBENQKNGBR RBQNKGNEBR and RBENGKNQBR RBENKGNQBR and RBQNGKNEBR RBGNKENQBR and RBQNEKNGBR RBQNKENGBR and RBQNEKNGBR </PRE> The Grotesque Chess array is the third one down on the left. First, I favor eliminating each pair member that puts the White Queen on the King's right side. This is just to preserve the usual meanings of King-side and Queen-side. This leaves these: <PRE> RBENQKNGBR RBENQKNGBR RBQNKGNEBR RBQNGKNEBR RBQNEKNGBR RBQNKENGBR </PRE> Again, the Grotesque Chess array is the third one down. One factor to consider is which better balances the power of the pieces on both sides of the King. Since the Queen is more powerful than either Guard or Equerry, it would be one with the Queen on the King's left and Guard and Equerry on the King's right. These leaves these: <PRE> RBQNKGNEBR RBQNKENGBR </PRE> The first one is the Grotesque Chess array. The other one may be superior. It puts the weakest of the compound pieces in the center, and it separates the two compounds that move as Rooks. One thing I didn't like about Grotesque Chess was how easily the Queen and Guard could team up because of their proximity to each other, but I had regarded this as a necessary evil to protect all Pawns. I shall test this other arrangement and see if I wish to make it the new array for Grotesque Chess. This is a prerogative I take while the game is still in its infancy. I now have a ZRF that plays Grotesque Chess, and with just some slight modifications, I can do some playtesting with it. <BLOCKQUOTE> In case anyone is wondering, it may be worth stating that the origin of the piece names used here is Bird's Chess. </BLOCKQUOTE> It has already been stated on the page. <BLOCKQUOTE> I agree with the others that this variant is far from grotesque. </BLOCKQUOTE> Well, I'm pleased by that. But from the common Chess-is-the-only-Chess-variant-anyone-needs perspective, it probably is grotesque. <BLOCKQUOTE> Perhaps as the distinctive feature is having Knights so near the middle a good name might be Mid(k)night Chess. </BLOCKQUOTE> That may be the best suggestion I've heard so far. But I still like the name Grotesque Chess. It's a name that's harder for people to pass by without wondering what it's about. <BLOCKQUOTE> On the other hand Grotesque Chess would be a far better name for the variant currently called British Chess, which was mentioned in an earlier comment. </BLOCKQUOTE> No, you're quite wrong about that. British Chess is a beautiful game. Also, given how the game is so based on British heraldry and other British themes, it would be a grave insult to the British to call it by that name.