[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]
Comments/Ratings for a Single Item
What would you estimate to be the value of the Q3, David, on this board?
Q2=500, Q3=600, Q4=700 seem to work on boards from 8x8 to 12x12. NOTE: I have edited my previous values for the N+F+W+A+D and Sorceress downwards. WARNING: endgames on a 16x12 board with promotion on the player's tenth rank can be tricky. A [W+F+sideways Rook] piece would be worth its weight in gold there.
Damn. I've been working on a ShortRange variant with pieces very similar to your Elephant, Tiger, and Duke - identical, in fact, save for one less square of range (WB3, FR3, and Q2). Great minds... *smirk* I'll still throw it out there if playtesting proves it to be any good - it's just that now I'll look like a copycat. 'It's not a ripoff...it's an homage!' :) As for Cataclysm, I like it. I like the big board. I like all the pieces save the Great Rook, and that's only because I have a personal dislike of hoppers. All in all, it looks like fun.
Joe Joyce wrote on Wed, Apr 18, 2007 11:53 AM UTC:Hey, Greg, could have sworn I commented on this already. I like it. An interesting balance of pieces and a nice low starting density. A lot of the pieces are similar in value but move quite differently, so exchanges would have an impact on the character of the endgame, as players could have noticeably different armies that are equivalent. This seems to be a characteristic of your games, providing even trades among different pieces. A very pretty game, with a nice collection of new[?] shortrange pieces, plus some old favorites among the longrange pieces. This game also seems to be getting up toward the practical limit of large games with a good flow, but with only one piece moving per turn. It looks like you've accomplished a marvelous balancing act. This one is calling me to play it right now, even though I'm playing too many already.
Is this the COURIER CHESS of the new century? Many interesting ideas here. If you decide that the Grand Rook is too strong, try using a Grand Cannon, combining the moves of the Wazir and the Cannon. Note on terminology: Roberto Lavieri uses (very different) Grand-Rooks and Grand-Cannons in ALTAIR. As an experiment, I am subtracting 4P, D, S, C, T and cutting the board down to 12x12. As in Mir Chess 32, the rotationally symmetric setup staggers the pawn lines. Give all pawns an initial 2-step. . . . . . . . . P P P P 5 . . . . P P P P . . C C 4 P P P P E D S E . T . T 3 C . T . E Q K E . . . . 2 G R B . . . . . . B R G 1 a b c d e f g h i j k l
I would personally suggest a neater starting position than the one in use. You have 24 pieces, so it would seem natural to stack them in two 12-square ranks. I'd suggest tilting the board so it's vertical instead of horizontal. You will have 12 files and 16 ranks. If you want 4 ranks between the two camps then pawns will have to start at the 6th rank. This is my suggestion : P P P P P P P P P P P P 6 T T C C E E E E C C T T 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 X X X X X X X X X X X X 3 G R B S D Q K S D B R G 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 a b c d e f g h i j k l Or P P P P P P P P P P P P 6 R C C B S D S D B C C R 5 . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 X X X X X X X X X X X X 3 G T T E E Q K E E T T G 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 a b c d e f g h i j k l The X's are Berlin Pawns. They have double-step and may be captured en-passant by other Berlin pawns (and/or normal pawns, if you wish.) Normal pawns promotion rules are as stated in the rules, on the 14th, 15th, or 16th rank. Berlin pawns promote at 11th, 12th, or 13th, with the same promotion rules. The King may castle with Grand Rooks by moving four squares to the right or the left and the Grand Rook move to the square next to the King. Or with Rooks by moving three squares.
Joe Joyce wrote on Fri, May 4, 2007 12:43 PM UTC:Thought-provoking comment by Abdul-Rahman Sibahi. If I were to take his approach, I'd dump the row of berolinas and shorten the board to 12x12 or even 12x10, leaving 4-6 empty rows between the pawns. I think this would speed the game back up, as I think the suggested version would slow it down - you might wanna call it 'Paroxysm' in view of how you'd get the berolinas through the row of friendly pieces 2 squares in front of them... :-) Seriously, I think his suggested version would be a slower, more difficult game to play, but posing an interesting problem in development. Consider the effects of the suggestion. First, it adds 8 more pawns to the mix, changing the pawn:piece ratio to 1:1 from 2:3. Second, it reduces the 'front' of the armies from 16 squares to 12. You get a 20% increase in total pieces and a 20% decrease in attack lanes toward the opponent. What this does is change the 'Average Friendly Pieces per File' from 3 to 4, a 33% increase. Now, the pieces are lined up 4-deep, instead of 3. All other things being equal [and they're not; the average piece speed has gone down from the introduction of the extra 8 pawns], I think that the game must be longer, less clear, and more drawish than the original, based on general principles. On the positive side, I think the suggestion allows for a game of greater depth, both tactical and strategic.
According to Joe Joyce's comment, 'Paroxysm' is more like Chu Shogi than Courier Chess (as David Paulowich suggests.)
💡📝Greg Strong wrote on Fri, May 4, 2007 10:11 PM UTC:I like the wide array, partly because it more resembles armies meeting on a battlefield, and partly because the armies can meet on the left, center, and right, with different things going on in each area, and a player must decide which confrontation is most urgent. Also, I do not think that there is any wrong with the opening setup having gaps between pieces - in fact, I think this is good because development is faster as pieces can slide between other pieces. I think some large board games develop too slowly, with Omega Chess being an example.
I see no point in this, as this variant is virtually unplayable. The tactical capacity of short-range-pieces is such that this takes too long to play. Could somebody please explain the credo behind these constructs? Are they to be regarded pieces of art, or what? Why not settle for more modest constructs? /Mats
I would think that one approach to a game like this -- massive armies moving rather slowly on a huge board -- would be to allow several pieces to move each turn.
Greg, the Grand Rook, am I right to assume, can only leap over a piece to capture, but can't make a non-capturing leap?
💡📝Greg Strong wrote on Sun, Jul 29, 2007 03:23 AM UTC:That is correct - it can only leap to capture, like a Chinese Chess cannon.
Hi, Greg: If you don't like the idea of a single King's leap for unmoved king anywhere in the first three ranks, Quinquereme Style, how about a single king's leap (for an unmoved king) to either (for white) b2, b1 or o2, o1. Just another thought.
Mats, I think you may be suffering from what Gary Gifford calls the 'green eggs and ham' syndrome. You haven't tried playing this game. I urge you to try playing a game or two of this and then I think you will see that it is in fact, very playable and it may even inspire you to create variants with boards of more diverse types than the ones you tend to favor. I realize that the format may seem overwhelming at first, the 12 x 16 board, but I really don't think that you can criticize something like this before trying it. The fact that larger shogi variants have achieved great success in past centuries gives us a clue as to what may be do-able in the universe of chess variants.
This is a very enjoyable variant, very cutting edge. It features a number of pieces whose relative value is very hard to determine on this long board so, as Greg Strong remarked to me, it turns into a Chess with Different Armies competition where you get to pick your own army depending on the type of exchanges your opponent is willing to allow. I've become very fond of this variant, though I think it may be helpful to use an alternate piece set at least until one is acclimated to seeing the one Greg Strong chose in the way he wishes them to be seen. I'd like to get this alternate piece set added at some point to the original preset so that players can choose which set of pieces they want to use (not sure how to do that right now).
With respect for Strong's himself frequent evaluation of others' normal-size variates or piece-values, I have to agree 100% with the sense of M.Winther's 5May2007 Comment, 'I SEE NO POINT IN THIS[caps. added], as this variant is virtually unplayable. ...too long to play. Could somebody please explain the credo behind these constructs? Are they to be regarded as pieces of art, or what?' We just take Cataclysm as 'Sarcasm'. No one in the outside world would be interested in anything like this. We assume it must be a joke. The proponents of multiform ethos never understand that those at opposite extreme are serious thinking there are only 20, or 100, or 200 important Chess forms to consider during an era, never thousands. Hey, for many, many very good players there is only the ONE true Chess, and no changing that. Thus the effort should be to find those 100 not devise obsessively willy-nilly. Contributor Winther may be intermediate, but I stand opposite the Joe Joyce-expressed 'Let a thousand flowers bloom' and stay here presumptively for sanity at the Alice-like tea party. If only they could imagine a Boston Tea Party instead, they have 50 standouts but not 500, and Cataclysm is one of their backwater exercises in whatever.
💡📝Greg Strong wrote on Sat, Aug 18, 2007 08:06 PM UTC:George, I understand your feelings about the fact that there are thousands of variants here, most of which would not be the slightest bit interesting to most people, and many of which have never even been played. But it seems unfair to me to use that opinion to assert that Cataclysm is pointless. It is quite different from any other variant (that I know of.) It has a large board with predominately medium-range pieces. And, as such, it plays unlike any other variant that I have tried. And I like it. Of course, others may not - this is a radical change from Chess, and is not intended to be the next Chess, or the logical successor to Chess, or anything like that as others claim about their variants. This is just a game that hopefully is fun to play. UNPLAYABLE?!? The other criticism doesn't bother me, but it does bug me a little that this game has now be labeled as 'unplayable' by two people now who have not played it, or even tried. Is it too hard to understand the rules? I doubt it. Lasts too long? Maybe - games probably average about 80-100 moves. Some may consider that too long. But the tempo is very different from Chess, however, and a lot less rides on each move. I consider it to be more strategical and less tactical than Chess, and, to my tastes, that is a good thing. Unplayable? Nonsense. Seriously, there's a big difference between 'I don't want to play it' and 'I can't play it.'
Joe Joyce wrote on Sun, Aug 19, 2007 03:24 AM UTC:George, I don't know that I ever expressed it *quite* like that, lol, but yes, I believe there are a large number of games in the 'Chess' area of conceptual space, and think many of them are quite good and worth playing if you're so inclined. We also have a number of games that are very close to, but not quite inside, the 'Chess' area, and this site seems to have been accepting them well before I found it. I think that's good in itself [and also because there is really no other place for them.] That's my basic position. Now, thank you, George, for helping me make the big time. :-) Must be getting somewhere if I have an avowed philosophical adversary! And while one could loosely categorize us as opposites, with your position as 'minimalist' and mine as 'maximalist', there are some points on which we have general agreement. The number of games on CV certainly exceeds the number of good games by an order of magnitude. And I must give you points for agreeing there are a decent number of good games onsite, even 50 standouts. Most minimalists wouldn't do that. But I must agree with Greg and Jeremy that you and Mats are both wrong in condemning a game as unplayable without even trying to play it when the game and rules are as simple and easy to understand as Cataclysm. [And Jeremy's Cataclysm preset with the alternate 'pictograph' pieces makes the game even easier to play.] This is not some tired re-working of chancellor chess or Carrera's chess. This is an excellent shot at creating a different kind of chess variant, and I respect it as such. It's eminently playable. I will here cheerfully challenge Greg, you, and Mats to a game - Jeremy and I already have one going. Some of your other comments I'll try to take up elsewhere. I may surprise you by finding an area of agreement again. Enjoy! Joe
Can the Sorceress Jump? it doesn't seem like it can, but it is not disallowed in the rules. Thanks! :)
Joe Joyce wrote on Fri, Feb 15, 2008 06:08 PM UTC:Hi, Eric. I can answer that: no, the sorceress does not jump. It's similar to pieces like the chu shogi lion, but is basically a 2-step guard. It slides 1 square in any direction, and then slides 1 square in any direction again, except back to its starting square. ;-) Enjoy
Thanks, Joe!
I'll give this game a shot-Matthew Vallee has a challenge up.
Actually, Rennchess has a variant that uses a 14x12 board, which will allow increased movement behind the lines. Perhaps this is similar to what Cataclysm is trying to achieve...hmmm.
To comment on the opposing viewpoints expressed here....
I happen to agree w/ you, Joe-let the Creativity flow!
WHo among us is qualified to say which 50, or 100, or even 1000, games is 'worthy' to be played? Every game has appeal to at least ONE person! :)Saying that a game is unworthy in comparison to another one is judgemental in the extreme! I don't like the Majority of games out there, But isn't that just MY taste in games?
I have created quite a few chess variant games. A few are very good (some even award-winners!), some are just good, some are ok, and a few are stinkers! However, learning an artistic craft like Game Designing means not everything will be great every time. Take what is good and leave the rest alone-don't disparage someone else's efforts!
OK, off the soapbox (for now)......
Is Jeremy still here and playing?
Eric
P.S. I'm looking for players for my Courier Chess, Mod 5. I believe I have found THE best update of historical Courier Chess, one that keeps the same ideas, flow of play, and strategic scope that the Original game had for Medieval players. Anyone interested, please challenge!
(btw, it took 5 tries to finally get it right. Perfection is rarely achieved on the first try... ;} )Joe Joyce wrote on Mon, Feb 18, 2008 02:20 AM UTC:Hi, Eric! [Some of us think] it's nice to see you back, lol. ;-) This is an interesting game. I think it's on the edge of playability for a large traditional chess variant. Greg has a nice dynamic with the king being so exposed in the middle of the board. You should like it.
Jeremy is still around, I believe, but is letting life interfere with CVs. Which is a shame, because he is supposed to judge the 45-46 square contest with me, and hasn't surfaced after the first meeting. Why am I putting this on Greg's Cataclysm page? Because Greg is the third of us judges, and he is also among the missing. [This is unofficial notice that the results of the contest will be delayed.]
And this brings us, in a roundabout way, to playtesting games. I know you asked for someone to playtest Courier Mod 5, but I'm thinking of recruiting a couple new playtesters for the contest... maybe we can work a deal.
Enjoy,
JoeHi Joe! Well I'm glad Someone is happy i'm back! :) Could be much worse.... Actually, Courier 5 is one of my most playtested games-but just against myself, unfortunately. I've finished about 20 [solitaire] games, and played a couple against a friend. It IS a different paced game, but one that has some nice concepts to it, with lots of tension and strategy, and some unexpected tactical shots as well. I wouldn't mind doing a tournament w/ Courier, especially if enough people can be recruited! I suspect a cash Prize would help matters along with that...now i just gotta get enough to make it worth while! :)
Eric, where can I find out more about Courier Chess, Mods 4 & 5?
25 comments displayed
Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.
P=100, N=300, B=375, R=600, Q=(1075 to 1100)
F+W=325, B4+W=450, R4+F=550, N+F+W=625, and N+F+W+A+D=850
are my tentative values for some pieces on a 12x12 board. On the second row: Commoner, Elephant, Tiger, Centaur and the Lioness from Typhoon, Adrian King's high piece density 12x12 variant. See todays comment to Typhoon for more details on my calculations. I gave the Centaur a high value, but it is the only piece in your game that can leap to an empty square. Your Sorceress is a more restrained piece than the Lioness. Shall we say 800 points value in the endgame for a Sorceress? Recently I have used the Free Padwar (under the name Great Elephant) from Jetan. This colorbound version of the Sorceress moves one or two squares like a Ferz. Note that the maximum possible move for a Bishop on a 16x12 board is the same as on a square 12x12 board. Rooks and Cannons (up to 15 squares sideways) gain a little on your board, while short range pieces lose a little, compared to the 12x12 board. Pawns remain a mystery.
A Rook+Cannon+Knight piece can be found in the historical Chinese Chess variant YiTong. The War Machine in Fantasy Grand Chess The Dwarven Army moves as Rook+Cannon+Sekisho (Stone General - one square diagonally forward). Offhand, I would value your Grand Rook somewhere between a Queen and a pair of Rooks.