Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

~~Earlier~~ ⇧Reverse Order⇩ ~~Later~~

Templar Chess. Features the unorthodox Templar on a board with eight extra squares. (8x10, Cells: 72) [All Comments] [Add Comment or Rating]

🕸Fergus Duniho wrote on Fri, Feb 17, 2006 04:58 AM UTC:

If I understand you, the Templar may ride two spaces diagonally as a Bishop, or it may leap two spaces orthogonally. In other words, it combines the moves of a Chinese Chess Elephant and a Dababbah. In case those pieces aren't already known to you, this is to say that it can be blocked diagonally, but it cannot be blocked orthogonally. Is this correct?

David Paulowich wrote on Sat, Feb 18, 2006 12:51 AM UTC:

HERE is the page defining the Bede (moves like a bishop or a dabbabah). Ralph Betza says this piece is roughly equal to a Rook on the standard 8x8 board. Michael Howe [his comment has been deleted] is interpreting your Templar as a Bede which is limited to a maximum movement of two squares. Such a piece should have value approximately halfway between a Bishop and a Rook.

💡📝Adrian Alvarez de la Campa wrote on Sat, Feb 18, 2006 03:04 AM UTC:

Yes, Michael Howe is correct about the Templar's movement. I've tried clarifying this in the rules.

BTW, Fergus, did you get my e-mail about this game?

🕸Fergus Duniho wrote on Sat, Feb 18, 2006 04:35 AM UTC:

I got it. It's on a mental todo list. But I first have to create a set with the Templar piece in it. Once that it is done, it will mainly be a simple matter of reusing code already written for Chess.

💡📝Adrian Alvarez de la Campa wrote on Wed, Feb 22, 2006 10:48 PM UTC:

Thanks! Looking forward to playing it on Game Courier.

Peter Leyva wrote on Sun, Mar 26, 2006 08:13 AM UTC:Good ★★★★

Good job Adrian!

This is a very nice addition to the chess variants.  What do you think of
the variant Palace Revolution?  I would like to hear your feed on it.  As
for this game/I look forward to playing a game.  Perhaps, I might play one
with yourself.
Sincerely Pete

💡📝Adrian Alvarez de la Campa wrote on Sun, Mar 26, 2006 11:15 PM UTC:

Thank you, Peter. I'll send you a game invite. I took a quick look at your game and it looks interesting; have you playtested it? I also noted the coincidence in naming a piece Templar. I'm currently working on a further development of Templar Chess where the Templar can promote, gaining a full Bishop's move.

Gary Gifford wrote on Mon, Mar 27, 2006 02:16 AM UTC:

I am curious as to why castling is prohibited. Thanks.

💡📝Adrian Alvarez de la Campa wrote on Wed, Mar 29, 2006 04:38 AM UTC:

Castling didn't seem essential for this game since there are squares behind the King for him to move to. Also, if I remember correctly, I tested the game with castling, and play just seemed a bit less dynamic.

Gary Gifford wrote on Wed, Mar 29, 2006 05:20 PM UTC:

Thanks for answering the question regarding castling.  I agree that
castling is not necessary, but allowing it would provide for much greater
opening variety, and I think would be a significant improvement.  The
possibility for opposite side castling and Kingside Pawn Storms vs
Queenside Pawn Storms [backed by Rooks and or Templars] would be
possible... and very exciting chess, I think.

I would have castled Kingside, but with castling not allowed it seems that
dropping my King back to the Templar zone is pretty much forced, and that
opening variance is therefore limited.

I think it would be nice to offer a variant that allows for castling. 
Over the years you could see which variant was the most preferred.

Best regards.

Christine Bagley-Jones wrote on Mon, Jun 19, 2006 07:34 AM UTC:Excellent ★★★★★

i have only just recently played this game, the 'templar' is a great
piece, it plays well with the normal chess set-up (adding dabbaba move)
the board is great too with the added space at the back.
cool game.

Abdul-Rahman Sibahi wrote on Sat, Mar 17, 2007 12:31 PM UTC:

I wonder how the game would be like if two half-files were added in the same manner.

David Paulowich wrote on Thu, Nov 22, 2007 10:59 PM UTC:Good ★★★★

On the whole, I prefer the disappearing extra squares in Greg Strong's variants Brouhaha and Hubbub.

QUESTION concerning the statement 'All standard chess rules apply except that castling is not allowed.' Does this mean that when a White Pawn reaches rank 8, it can and must promote to any piece of the same color (not a King and not a Pawn)? Same question for when a Black Pawn reaches rank 1.

George Duke wrote on Sat, May 10, 2008 04:57 PM UTC:

Templar is Betza triple (Ferz + Dabbabah + Alfil), but not quite because of only sliding to Alfil (3,3). Jeremy Good named the regular one (F+D+A).

George Duke wrote on Tue, Nov 18, 2008 07:19 PM UTC:Good ★★★★

Great Shatranj makes Betza triples too, but with the Knight instead. Templar Chess (2006), that Joyce analyzes with Great Shatranj and Falcon Chess, has not really Betza triple, because Templar slides to Alfil. Now it starts ''maintaining many of the same opening possibilities as standard Chess.'' So, Alvarez de la Campa intends it as Joyce-invented ''Track One'' consideration. Actually the last year 2014 so far is Great Shatranj, King's Court and Three Player (Zubrin). Templar was back in the second trio for year 2010. Templar is close counterpart of Omega Champion (WAD). However, Templar (DF + slide to A) becoming colourbound, as stated, does not leap to Alfil, as we would expect if really patterning after Omega Champion.

Kevin Pacey wrote on Tue, Dec 19, 2017 06:21 AM UTC:

For what it's worth, Fergus' preset for Templar Chess has pawns of either side promoting only once moving to the ninth (tenth?!) rank, if they are on the middle four files, and promotion to a Templar piece is allowed.

Kevin Pacey wrote on Thu, Mar 1, 2018 09:24 AM UTC:Good ★★★★

Kind of an interesting variant, with the additional piece type and odd board shape.

Greg Strong wrote on Wed, May 26, 2021 03:33 PM UTC:

The pawn promotion rule is not clear from this description. The point has been raised in the comments, but the author has not clarified.

In the Game Courier preset, written by Fergus, the pawns promote on the 9th rank on the a, b, g, and h files and the 10th rank on the c-f files. But in the Zillions code, written by the author, the pawns always promote on the 9th file. But the Zillions implementation is not 100% consistent either... It says "Promotion on the ninth rank is to Knight, Bishop or Rook" but it actually allows promotion to Queen and Templar also.

Adrian wrote on Sat, May 29, 2021 05:07 PM UTC in reply to Greg Strong from Wed May 26 03:33 PM:

Unfortunately the preset is wrong, at least in my mind: Pawns promote on the 9th rank to any piece (including Queen and Templar).

19 comments displayed

~~Earlier~~ ⇧Reverse Order⇩ ~~Later~~

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.