Comments by JorgKnappen

This game should be judged by its design criteria: Given a set of pieces (in hardware), create a solid and playable chess variant for them. It think it fits this purpose well, allthough I think keeping the original movements of the Omega chess pieces makes this a rather slow game, because the pieces are short-range on a 12x12 board.

On the Omega wizard: A pair of wizards and a king cannot mate a lone king (on any conventional rightangular board). The reason is that they must switch between odd and even ranks and files all the time. On the big board the wizard is clearly weaker than the bishop; on 8x8 it may be equal or slightly stronger because of its higher mobility and forking power.

I agree with him on the value of the Eohippos. It is one pawn above the knight, giving it a value of 4. When I designed the game, I assumed that the value of the Chancellor or Marshall were equal to the value of the Queen. Taking the horizontal movent away should cost about two pawns leaving it with a value of 7. However, I don't think any longer that the equality of Chancellor and Queen holds true. There is something in the Queen making her a perfect chess piece and giving her a higher value than the comparable chancellor. So a realistic judgement of the Fischer's value lies between 6 and 6.5 pawn units---not enough to win against a rook in an otherwise equal setting.

In the setting against the fabolous FIDEs, the levelling effect or elephantiasis correction strikes the queen. This might still even the game.

So when I have to name a piece, I always look for an established name first. Often I find one I like and use it, sometimes I want to differ and choose another name.

I use the lists of Derzhanski, Jelliss, Grimbert and Poisson (in approximately this order of preference) along with notes I have taken from several chess variants. A new list is published by the problemist's journal Die Schwalbe, compiled by Gruber and can be found here: 

http://www.dieschwalbe.de/lexikon.htm

Truelove's list only gives names and games, unfortunately, and I have never done the task of annotating it with move patterns.

I do not use the names made up by Gilman for several reasons:

1. They are not based on exhaustive research, in particular they do not incorporate the four lists I have cited above. So he does not give the relevant names to known pieces and he sometimes assigns a new movement pattern to an already used name.

2. I need translatable names, i.e., names that work in languages other than english. Gilman's names rely heavily on untranslatable puns and anagrams.

3. For use in game notation, the initial letters should be different for the pieces drafted. Gilman's names tend to start in the same letter for many pieces.

There is a minor error about the WL (Wazir+Camel) compound: This piece cannot checkmate, because it does not control two orthogonally adjacent squares. Therefore it is not a major piece under the definition used by Fergus Duniho.

On the other hand, a Wazir and a Camel and a King (three pieces!) can mate a lone King.

Yes, it is. Currently I think that the Chancellor/Marshall is somewhat (maybe 0.5 pawn units) weaker than the Queen. The Fers move adds about 1.5 pawn units of strength, plus another 0.5 pawn units for curing the specific weakness of the Chancellor/Marshall, leaving the Archchanchellor at about 1.5 pawns stronger than the Queen. This difference should be noticeable during the game, but it is probably not enough to decide the pawnless endgame K+Archchancellor vs. K+Q in favour to the Archchancellor.

Note that this comparison is made for the 8x8 board. On larger boards the Queen gains strength compared to the Archchancellor because all her moves are long-range, but most of his moves are short-range.

The specific weakness of the Chancellor/Marshall is that the King can directly attack it. Thus adding a move-only Fers to it does not cure this weakness. But adding it may equalise the Chancellor with the Queen (on 8x8, of course).

The european invention of the queen was precedented by the Japanese invention of the 'Free King' in large Shogi variants (like Chu shogi) by some centuries. What is more striking in this context is that the european obsession since Carrera, namely the Chancellor/Marshall and the Janus/Paladin pieces, does not occur in asian chess variants. This says---IMO---something about the quality of the pieces: The Queen/Free King is a perfect chess piece while the other two leave something open.

Back to Eurasian chess: It has a nice piece and rule mix and makes a great variant (learning from several other excellent games). For my taste, the Eurasian pawn is a bit too complicated and the rules concerning the pawn could be simplified. Promotion to captured pieces only has an old-fashioned look, at least.

Formidable pieces, I say.

The Quintessence lacks the can-mate property on regular rectangular boards. The necessary piece of analysis goes as follows:

There is only one mating position with King and Quintessence vs. King, namely Black: King a1, White: King a3, Quintessence d2. Note that the position with a white King on b3 is a stalemate because the white King now blocks the check against the black King.

To force the the black King to a1, the position prior to the mate must look like Black King b1; White King a3, Quintessence controls squares c1 and c2. This can be done with Quintessence on b4 or d4. However, there is no quintessential move from b4 or d4 to d2. Therefore no mate can be forced.

First of all, the write-up of the rules is a bit too sketchy and a lot of interpretation is needed in order to bring this game to play.

Second, it is a straight and boring win for white under the following interpretation of the rules: If a piece is watched by a knight (friend or foe) it must move and this zugzwang cannot be lifted by capturing the knight unless the capturing move is also also executed by a piece forced by a knight.

The sample game starts as follows:

1. e3 e6 
2. d3 d6   The first two moves are forced. Taking double step
3. Na3 Nh6 Other black responses won't help either
4. c3 f6
5. Nb5     Now black must move the pawns on a7, c7, and d6 while
           white has three free moves. Afterwards, the knight moves
           to c7 pressuring Ra8, Ke8, e6. White has free moves again.
           Eventually white blocks a pawn and the game is over.           
           Alternatively, white can bring out its queen to checkmate the 
           black King.

A great idea and a great story together with the traces of playtesting. This makes an excellent new chessvariant.

Of course, a cooperative game can be regarded as a puzzle for one player only (fighting againts the dice), but my experience (from playing Rengo) shows that reading the partner's ideas adds another twist to a game.

A very interesting note worth reading again from time to time.

What makes me wonder here are the remarks about old shatranj and that
K+4F (same colour) should win against K+R. I tried this by hand and found no way of confirming this claim. 5 Ferzes of the same colour are a different thing: A chain of Ferzes along the long diagonal can confine the rook in one diagonal half of the board (with the help of the King and noting that it is forbidden to give permanent check in Shatranj). Then, the net of Ferzes can be tightened until the rook is caught in a net and can be taken by the King.

There is still considerable counterplay by an active defending King, and exact play is needed.

I think, the mentioned scenarioes are worth a computer analysis.

--Jörg Knappen

An excellent to this game!

Maybe the author has not read the comment below, otherwise he would have been frightened by the task he has underdone. On the other hand: Can a Spartan be frightened?

http://www.chessvariants.org/piececlopedia.dir/chess-different-pawns.html

--JKn

References

• Index of Ralph Betza's work on piece values
• A Pawn is as Strong as the Hand that Holds It Part I
• A Pawn is as Strong as the Hand that Holds It Part II
• A Pawn is as Strong as the Hand that Holds It Part III

Unfortunately, no one seems to know the circular chess variant I have
sketched in the previous message of this thread. The board was similar to
this one:

http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSknightsofthero

and the rules for going through the center were similar like in this
variant

http://www.chessvariants.org/shape.dir/globe.html

First, look at the recognised chess variants here:

http://www.chessvariants.org/rindex.html

Then, all national chess variants with a player community and some
tradition; i.e., Makruk, Sittuyin, Shatar (Mongolian Chess).

You may also look at contest-winning chess variants and contest finalists,
see here:
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/mainquery.php?type=Contest&orderby=LinkText&displayauthor=1&displayinventor=1&usethisheading=Contests

Unfortunately, Ibis is a well established and published name for the (1,5)-leaper, see e.g., here:

http://www.dieschwalbe.de/lexikon.htm

We tacitly assume that strength can be measured by one number and that the numbers can be compared using a transitive relation like 'greater than'. However, this needs not to be true, see here for a simple game with dice:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontransitive_dice

So here is a new chess variant challenge: Chess with nontransitive armies

Design a chess variant with different armies such that, whatever army your opponent chooses first, you can choose another army having an advantage over your opponent's army. (To avoid the first move problem assume 2 games where either army moves first once)