Comments by FergusDuniho

First let me mention that Pritchard's Encyclopedia of Chess Variants
includes an article on this subject, written not by Pritchard, but by Tom
Braunlich. It's under the entry 'Designing a Variant'. In this short
article, Braunlich describes two criteria: elegance and balance. These are
two criteria I had an instinct for as early as Cavalier Chess, though I
hadn't formalized my thought on the subject. 'An elegant game', he
says, 'combines minimum rules with maximum strategy.' To give one
example from my own games, Metamorphin' Fusion Chess combines the rules
of two other games, Metamorph Chess and Fusion Chess, and the result
transforms the strategy of the game. Unlike its forebears, Metamorphin'
Fusion Chess allows you to increase your material through reproduction.
Now let me contrast that with another of my games that never got uploaded
to the web. Shortly before Jason Whitman introduced a game called
Evolution Chess, I had created a game called Evolution Chess. My Evolution
Chess was completely different. In my game, each piece had a double set of
chromosomes, which is what determined its powers and its gender. Instead
of making a regular move, a player could mate a male and a female piece,
to procreate a new piece whose DNA was a random mixture of the two with
some chance of mutation. I suppose I should release it with an alternate
name such as Procreation Chess or Sex Chess. Anyway, as elegant as both
games are, I think that Metamorphin' Fusion Chess probably handles
procreation in a more elegant way. Procreation simply follows from the
rules, whereas procreation is explicitly built into the rules of my
unpublished game. In general, it is better when the strategic elements of
a game simply flow from its rules instead of being built into them. 

Braunlich describes balance as being between pieces. He points out that
changes in various parameters can upset the balance between a game's
pieces, and these 'must be reconstituted in some way to prevent the game
from becoming too straightforward.' A game that is too straightforward
would be one that has too much clarity and not enough depth. So he is
getting at something of the same thing as Mark Thompson writes about. As
an example, let me compare Cavalier Chess with an early version of the
same game. In Cavalier Chess, most pieces get additional Knight powers,
and the Knight itself moves as a Nightrider. In an early version of the
game, Pawns were replaced by Knights. This made the game too
straightforward, for the Knights quickly captured each other, leaving the
other pieces too easily exposed to each other. I fixed this by replacing
leaping Chess Knights with the lame Knights used in Chinese Chess. These
could be used for blocking, which allowed the powerful pieces behind them
to be used more strategically.

Roman Chess, another commercial variant, also has a piece called an Archer.


I almost used the name Archer for the Arrow in Yang Qi and Eurasian Chess,
but I could not find a Chinese character I was sure meant Archer. If I had
named the piece Archer, I would not change it because you have now used
the name in a patented game. Patents do not protect names. That's what
registered trademarks are for. Even so, a registered trademark would not
give you the rights you seem to think you have. Marvel Comics has a
registered trademark on the name Captain Marvel, which it uses to keep DC
from publishing any comic book with the name Captain Marvel in the title.
But, as much as Marvel might otherwise like to, it cannot stop DC from
using the name Captain Marvel for one of it's comic book characters,
which DC does do. If Marvel can't force DC to change the name of the
superhero Billy Batson turns into when he says Shazam, you surely don't
have the right to ask anyone to change the name of any piece previously
known as Archer.

Apology accepted. Following up on Michael Nelson's comment, the earliest
game I've found with an Archer in it is Spanish Chess, which dates back
to 1739. I used the list of Fairy Chess pieces on this site to find the
names of games that use an Archer, then looked them up in Pritchard's
Encyclopedia of Chess Variants. In Spanish Chess, Archers move forward
like Rooks and backwards like Bishops. The Archer was also used more
recently in a commercial game called Fantasy Chess, made by Little Soldier
Games in 1975. This Archer moved up to four squares in any direction.

I've just been browsing through the patents on Chess variants and have
learned some curious things.

There is a game called America's Chess, and the new piece in this game is
called a Pope. With a name like America's Chess, I might expect a new
piece with a name like Eagle, Minuteman, or President, but I would never
expect Pope.

In 1977, Michael J. Corinthios of Montreal patented a game called
Grandchess. That's 8 years before Christiaan Freeling invented his game.
This game is listed in Pritchard's Encyclopedia of Chess Variants, but
the GRANDCHESS entry just refers you to the MINISTERS entry. Grandchess is
the only name I found in the patent. He uses the same name in a second
1988 patent.

You do not get a piece back for getting your King across and back.

When one side has only a King and a Bishop, and the other side has only a
King and a Knight, the game will end in a draw -- but not because there is
any rule which says the game is a draw. It will be a draw because neither
side has enough material to checkmate the other side. If the players did
not choose to call it a drawn game right away, it should eventually end in
a draw by the 50 moves rule.