Comments by fantactic1

I tried e-mailing a couple people at this site but might have had the wrong e-mail addresses (got kick back from the mail server).  It was basically just a question about a new game entry I submitted recently.  Just wanted to make sure I was using the correct contacts for my question.

Greg, the Lancer must move before rotating; it cannot rotate as a move by itself.  The reason is to prevent the lancer from being too powerful, so choosing the direction after a move is obviously very important (one must be sure there are safe squares it could move to if attacked - or if it needs to turn around).  I also wanted to prevent someone from turning the lancer as a way out of zugzwang positions (or to avoid stalemate in a lame way).

Aurelian, I hadn't heard of Rotary before but that looks interesting too.  That one appears to have mostly sliding pieces.  For this variant, I mostly wanted to create an alternate "jumping" piece other than the knights we're used to.  It would create some different approaches to all phases of the game.  The lancers probably lose a little value in open positions just like the knight, but I'm sure they can be used for some great tactics even late in the game (such as putting a lancer behind passed pawns- maybe even more useful than a rook in that regard)

I believe a single lancer and king cannot force checkmate, but two lancers could.

Edwin, I haven't had a chance to play this yet and can't give a rating right now, but after reading the rules from the external website, I think it would be worth a try.  The idea of only checkmating the player to the left makes a lot of sense, so that's a good idea.  The restriction on pawn captures in the first round is practical too.

I was a bit curious about some of the other rules like this: "Kings may enter their own coloured corner square and become immune from check or checkmate, provided that both of their Bishops are not captured. When a King enters his corner square, both of his Bishops become Queens instantly."

Were those rules added to bring some more unique flavor to the game (hence the game title), or is it something you feel is necessary to avoid problems that would occur from more orthodox rules in a 4-person chess game? 

Hi Fergus, is that your site or an external site that you wanted to share here?  If the former, I had a few questions about it.

I'm not sure if it exists already as a modest proposal, but I like the creativity of the promotion rule (and simplicity of the general idea).  Trying to "aim" pawns toward the central files for a queen sounds interesting.  My only concern would be if an obvious advantage for either side occurs due to some open files very early on in the game.

Fergus, there's a guy on YouTube who talks about boards and pieces for variant games, and not just shogi etc. but an example being Shuuro.  His YT account name is AncientChess.  Maybe he is still in operation?

I've altered the original setup slightly.  Lancers should begin the game facing diagonally inward to provide more squares for development.  Otherwise, having them face straight forward makes fianchetto-style openings a rote necessity, and it could detract from the usual option to castle early for those who prefer it.

This would mean that the English and Sicilian openings would not make much sense any more, as enemy lancers can immediately capture those pawns.  Nevetheless, I believe other openings become a possibility where they otherwise don't work.  Traditionally unsound openings like King's Gambit might be more appealing with a lancer.  Even an opening like the infamous 1. f3 could work nicely.

A question for experienced chess software programmers: how do you go about assigning value for a new or unexplored piece?  Is there a way to have the engine play itself, assuming different values, to see which values lead to fair games, or do you have to enter your own best guess for non-standard pieces?

Another question: how do you determine the value of the standard chess pieces if the variant has different rules?

Nicolino, good question, and sorry if the rules were unclear - the lancer can only jump as far as the first enemy piece that it's facing.  Assuming you were talking about the very first move for white, after Le4TNW, the lancer is only attacking the b7 pawn.  Then, Black could respond with d5 and win the lancer. 

Giving some credit to H.G. Muller, perhaps we could notate that first move you mentioned Le4=nw

I haven't had a chance to play this yet, so I refrain from a rating at this time.  It looks really cool though, as I love both chess and poker.  I personally tried to come up with a combination game like this, but didn't come up with anything this good.  It's quite interesting for sure.

My only concern, as Ben sort of hinted at, is the way that the game ends.  I would personally prefer if the betting was on entirely what happens in the chess game (the checkmate), not on the comparison of cards.  Each "hand" would be really just a quick game of chess, and you'd bet (or fold) based on what's happening on the board, which becomes more and more clear as you go on. 

As it exists now though, the end result of cards doesn't seem to be something that builds predictably over time, where you can predict what their opponent might hold.  It seems so random, like: "I've been collecting four 8's in my hand, and my opponent collected four 5's, so I win."  I wouldn't even care what happens in the chess game.  I would just hold off until I have a decent poker hand, letting my opponent checkmate me.  You see what I mean?

So anyway, the general gameplay of betting and drawing, and setting up a very complex position would be a lot of fun.  I might even expand the board size if it was about checkmate alone.  But it's your game, not mine :)

Hi Greg, I just wanted to see how development was going on your latest iteration of ChessV, which I'm guessing would be called Version 3.0?

If it's still in the works (or not officially planned) I just wanted to throw out some questions/comments about it.  If anyone already has a response for me, feel free to chime in if I missed something that already exists in V2.0

- Any ability to move foward and backward through the moves within the built-in GUI?  This would make playout of a game easier to analyze (or record for demo videos, etc.)  Animation preferred, but I could understand how that might be a hassle.

- Would a more univeral web-based version of ChessV be possible, or is that too much time/effort with javascript etc.?  I ask because the Jocly site has a lot of good web-based games, but their engines still seem very weak.

Anyway, this is coming from non-programmer - just some thoughts on possible improvements.  So far I think ChessV is proving to have the best engine for variants - especially those with altered rules.

This is an excellent concept.  The gameplay seems to be very "sharp" with lots of big swings, with regard to who's winning, but I haven't had a chance to play it.  I would imagine the biggest challenge is in the clarity, a concept referenced by Fergus Duniho in this site's articles.  That is to say, not even the strongest players would be able to look very far ahead - but maybe that's what you wanted?  It's probably just a preference - some people like the wild swings, so I shouldn't knock it for that aspect until I try it.  This would be a really fun game to do "mate in 3" type puzzles.

Mark, how did you determine the best position of colored squares and where the colored pieces would be?

I was trying to unlock the full version and purchase an unlock key online.  However, after the first screen and I click Next, it reads "URL not found" regardless of which browser I try.  Anyone know about this?  Is Zillions still around and working?