Ratings & Comments

How about the Tripunch Terrors, another army to compete against the
Fabulous FIDEs? :-) King and Pawns are standard. The rest of the pieces are
from Tripunch Chess, but they flip as pieces do in Weakest Chess- these
pieces have capturing and non-capturing modes, and can flip (as a move)
from one to the other. To keep the pawn line defended, the Reapers and
Combine start in capturing mode; the others start in non-capturing mode.

If flipping pieces are half as strong as regular pieces (and that seems to
be the estimate in the Weakest Chess article), then the Tripunch Terrors
are about 4 Pawns too strong as described. So we remove the ability to move
as a Bishop from the Harvesters and Combine... and then we should have a
game. So here's the official lineup: the Flipping Reaper, the Flipping
Nightrider, the Flipping Aanca, and the Flipping... the Flipping...

Give me some time. I'll come up with a name for that last one. :-D

It would seem that TERROR CHESS is identical to THE SULTAN'S GAME

http://www.chessvariants.com/large.dir/sultan.html

with the exception that the positions of the marshall and
cardinal are reversed. THE SULTAN'S GAME pre-dates TERROR CHESS
on this web site by three years. 

Nevertheless I still propose that my idea above for a variant
of chess between different armies would be intriguing. 

Oh and I would suggest variants with and alternately without
the 'Battle Move' when programming the ZRF for the above proposed
new variant. Players can decide for themselves which they prefer
to use.

''values of Nemoroth pieces' -- quite impossible.' --- I was just joking
here.  I actually can't imagine how one could assign values, considering
all the interactions.  In regular chess, the only interaction is capture.

'Likewise Nemoroth with Different Armies. The various non-capture effects
have values that are imho impossible to estimate numerically.'  --- True,
but it is possible to imagine other interactions that might be interesting.
 Several spring to mind (nature abhors a vacuum) but they could be as
simple as ichor with different effects.  One could even handicap by
allowing the ichor of each player to dissipate at different rates.

'The useful Go Away has a value that depends entirely on what it can push,
just for one example.' --- A trivially true statement.  Ceteris paribus, a 
Knight that can capture a Queen is worth more than one that can capture a
Bishop.  I consider values to be a statistical guide, not a received truth,
fun as they may be to study and play with.  (Of course, I stink as a chess
player, so what's my opinion worth?)

It is likely that I may soon be playing Nemoroth against another human via
email.  We will be sure to post our observations.

As a sidebar, there is really no assurance that any entity with which one
communicates via email alone is actually human.  We could all be alien
anthropologists, who, thinking we are studying humans, are studying each
other.  The resulting theses would be feces.

I am reviewing the document http://www.panix.com/~gnohmon/nemofull.html and
I need to know if I have interpreted it correctly.


Statements:

[A Leaf Pile] can move onto a non-ichorous non-Ghast square which contains
a Mummy and at least one other piece.

When a Leaf Pile makes its first voluntary move after engulfing something,
it leaves behind a single Mummy; notice that this means no Mummy is left
behind when a Leaf Pile that is digesting something is pushed.

Conclusion:

If a Leaf Pile engulfs a multiple occupancy square including a Mummy, and
then is pushed, there is no Mummy remaining on that square.


Statement:

If the ichor will evaporate after you make your move but before your
opponent moves, you can ignore it.

Conclusion:

That ichor actually lasts nine plies, not five moves.


There will be more questions.

1. Yes, the mummy has been engulfed.

2. 'ichor actually lasts nine plies' ---- hmmm.

This relates to the specific case where a piece is compelled to move off.
The ichor certainly lasts ten plies, so in this situation the ichor must
have been created during your opponent's move. My thought was that since it
will finish its evaporation at the end of your move, you can effectively
satisfy the compulsion to move off by simply staying where you are; and at
the end of your move the result is that you are no longer standing on icky
ichor.

Lovecraftian/Chess related story:

http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/Hangar/5176/misc/pirc01.htm

For those who constantly check the what's new page, I have created the
'Minimal New' page, which just gives a short summary on when the latest
comment was made, and when the latest item was added or updated. The
address is:

   http://www.chessvariants.com/index/new.php

OK, now I'm going to try to clarify ichor:

          Alabaster             Obsidian

          Wounded Fiend moves
Move 1    Ichor deposited       Ichor ply 2
          Ichor ply 1

Move 2    Ichor ply 3           Ichor ply 4

Move 3    Ichor ply 5           Ichor ply 6

Move 4    Ichor ply 7           Ichor ply 8

Move 5    Ichor ply 9           Ichor ply 10
                                Obsidian pieces need not 
                                move off ichorated square

OR

          Alabaster             Obsidian

                                Wounded Fiend moves
Move 1                          Ichor deposited
                                Ichor ply 1

Move 2    Ichor ply 2           Ichor ply 3

Move 3    Ichor ply 4           Ichor ply 5

Move 4    Ichor ply 6           Ichor ply 7

Move 5    Ichor ply 8           Ichor ply 9           

Move 6    Ichor ply 10
          Alabaster pieces need not 
          move off ichorated square


Does this look right?

Gee, now I wonder where he could have gotten the idea for this game,
huh? Well, you know what they say, 'immitation is the sincerest form
of flattery' so I guess I should be honored, eh? To anyone who is
not overly familiar with this web site I suggest you scroll down
on this comments page and click on the link for Double Chess below
or find it in the alphabetical index (the one with my name next to it).


Anyone can create a variant on a 16 by 8 board but it's not going to
have the same 'feel' of regular chess like my variant Doublechess does.
I have always felt that games with two kings are flawed. Chess should
be single-minded. Checkmate one king, period!

Quoth the Betza: 'The Leaf Pile cannot move of its own accord onto an
ichorous square, nor onto a square containing a statue, nor onto a square
containing a single mummy but no other pieces. It can move onto a
non-ichorous non-Ghast square which contains a mummy and at least one other
piece.'

Does that mean that a Leaf Pile can move of its own accord onto a square
containing TWO mummies? That's my interpretation. (NOTE: Two mummies can be
on the same square by pushing one onto another)

He probably got the idea from all the 'Double Chess' variants that have
popped up in the past 100 years. 

Basically, though, few of the double-wide 'real' chess games play like
chess for club-strength (Class C and Up) chessplayers. Standard Knights
play a reduced role on larger boards (for example, 7 moves to move between
end files) and standard Bishops also lose some of their lateral value.
Adding power pieces is one way to compensate (whether 3 Qs, RN, BN,
whatever) but that tends to reduce minor pieces to sacrificial fodder. Fans
of more subtle play are likely to be disappointed.

I actually like the 'mate two Kings' idea in Sirotkin's game somewhat
better, as it compensates somewhat for the stronger forces and reigns in
the value of the initiative a bit (sacs that may win one K must be balanced
against a material disadvantage in pursing the other).

Will there be a Half Board version of this game coming out soon? 
(I just like the thought of a Half Double Chess.) :-)